EPA 832-R-97-001b
April 1997
RESPONSE TO CONGRESS ON
USE OF DECENTRALIZED WASTEWATER
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER
OFFICE OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
WASHINGTON, D C
April 1997
-------
-------
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION 1
Chapter 2
ANALYSIS OF BENEFITS 5
Chapters
POTENTIAL SAVINGS AND COSTS 8
Chapter 4
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION 16
Chapter 5
EPA'S ABILITY AND PLANS TO IMPLEMENT 27
References 33
Appendix A Definition of Terms and Descriptions of Wastewater Systems A-1
Appendix B The Wastewater Planning Process B-l
Appendix C Types of Management Structures for Decentralized
Wastewater Systems C-l
Appendix D Cost Estimation Methodology D-l
Appendix E Case Studies E-l
Appendix F The Role of Rural Electric Cooperatives
in Upgrading Facilities F-l
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Adequately managed decentralized wastewater systems are a cost-effective and long-terrri
option for meeting public health and water quality goals, particularly in less densely populated
areas Small communities' wastewater needs are currently 10 percent of total wastewater
demands Decentralized systems serve approximately 25 percent of the U S population, and
approximately 37 percent of new development This document addresses the Congressional
House Appropriations Committee's request that EPA report on
i
(1) the Agency's analysis of the benefits of decentralized wastewater system
alternatives compared to current (i e, centralized) systems,
(2) the potential savings and/or costs associated with the use of these alternatives,
(3) the ability of the Agency to implement these alternatives within the current ,
statutory and regulatory structure, and
(4) the plans of the Agency, if any, to implement any such alternative measures using
funds appropriated in fiscal year 1997 '
Also addressed in this response is the Committee's inquiry on the role of Rural Electric
Cooperatives in upgrading rural drinking water and wastewater facilities
BACKGROUND
Well through the first half of this century, wastewater management entailed either
centralized collection sewers with some type of treatment facility for the highly populated areas,
or conventional onsite systems (or sometimes cesspools) for small towns, suburban and rural
areas With the passage of the Clean Water Act (CWA), PL 92-500 in October 1972, which
contained a national policy to provide funding for publicly owned treatment works and a goal to
restore our lakes and streams, most communities selected centralized systems which were
eligible for funding by the federal government The 1977 amendments to the CWA required
communities to examine or consider alternatives to conventional systems, and provided a
financial set-aside for such treatment systems to be built Approximately 2,700 facilities
utilizing innovative and/or alternative technologies were constructed through this grant program
which ended in 1990 Incentive set-aside funding was not continued under the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (SRF) program Given the billions of dollars in remaining needs for upgraded
and new wastewater facilities (EPA, 1993), communities must look even closer at alternative
technologies for meeting their needs
One area of concern is failing or obsolete wastewater systems in less densely populated
areas When these systems were first built, common practice was to install the least costly
solution, which was not necessarily the most appropriate solution for the conditions For a
-------
variety of reasons, these systems are failing Both centralized and decentralized system
alternatives need to be considered m upgrading failing systems to provide the most appropriate
and cost-effective solution to wastewator treatment problems This document addresses the
issues raised when considering decentnihzed treatment options
BENEFITS OF DECENTRALIZED SYSTEMS
Decentralized systems are appropriate for many types of communities and conditions
Cost-effectiveness is a primary consideration for selecting these systems and is summarized
below A list of some of the benefits of using decentralized systems follows
o Protects Public Health and the E nvironment Properly managed decentralized wastewater
« systems can provide the treatment necessary to protect public health and meet water
quality standards, just as well as centralized systems Decentralized systems can be sited,
designed, installed and operated to meet all federal and state required effluent standards
Effective advanced treatment units are available for additional nutrient removal and
disinfection requirements Also, these systems can help to promote better watershed
management by avoiding the potentially large transfers of water from one watershed to
another that can occur with centralized treatment
o Appropriate for Low Density Communities. In small communities with low population
densities, the most cost-effective option is often a decentralized system
o Appropriate for Varying Site Conditions Decentralized systems are suitable for a variety
of site conditions, including shallow water tables or bedrock, low-permeability soils, and
small lot sizes
o Additional Benefits. Decentralized systems are suitable for ecologically sensitive areas
(where advanced treatment, such as nutrient removal or disinfection is necessary) Since
centralized systems require collection of wastewater for an entire community at
substantial cost, decentralized systems, when properly installed, operated and maintained,
can achieve significant cost savings while recharging local aquifers and providing other
water reuse opportunities close to points of wastewater generation
POTENTIAL COSTS AND SAVINGS
Decentralized onsite and cluster wastewater systems can be the most cost-effective option
m areas where developing or extending centralized treatment is too expensive (e g , rural areas,
hilly terrain) Cost estimates on a national basis for all decentralized systems are difficult to
develop due to the varying conditions of each community The comparisons presented in this
document suggest that decentralized systems are typically cost-effective in rural areas For small
communities and areas on the fringes of urban areas, both decentralized and centralized systems
n
-------
(or combinations) can be cost-effective, depending on the site conditions and distance to existing
sewers
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTING DECENTRALIZED SYSTEMS
Several barriers, listed below, inhibit the expanded use of decentralized wastewater
systems Suggested ways to overcome the barriers are also provided The barriers and
suggestions address a wide range of issues and apply to the various organizations associated with
implementing decentralized systems
o
Lack of Knowledge and Public Misperception The perception of some homeowners,
realtors, and developers that centralized systems are better for property values and are
more acceptable than decentralized systems, even if they are far more costly f makes it
difficult to demonstrate that properly designed and managed decentralized systems can
provide equal or more cost-effective service Also, many regulators and wastewater
engineers are not comfortable with decentralized systems due to a lack of knowledge
Decentralized systems, particularly the non-conventional types, are not included in most
college and technical instructional programs
Overcoming the Barrier Professional training and certification programs should include
decentralized treatment systems Educational materials for homeowners should explain
proper operation and maintenance practices and the consequences of failures
Legislative and Regulatory Constraints State enabling legislation that provides the
necessary legal powers for carrying out important management functions may be absent,
vague, or not clearly applicable to decentralized systems Most importantly, in almost all
states, legislative authority for centralized and decentralized wastewater systems is split
between at least two state agencies It is also common for legislative authority for
decentralized systems to be split between state and local governments, resulting in further
confusion regarding accountability and program coordination Under these conditions,
decentralized wastewater systems have not gained equal stature with centralized facilities
for public health and environmental protection
Many states and localities also rely on inflexible and prescriptive regulatory codes for
decentralized systems, and often allow only the use of conventional septic systems
Where alternative systems are approved, approval often involves a lengthy process As a
result, an onsite system that may be inadequate (because the system could not operate
under the special site conditions) or a needlessly expensive centralized system or
expansion may be selected
Overcoming the Barrier States should be encouraged to develop or improve enabling
legislation that allows the creation of management agencies and empowers new or
111
-------
existing organizations to carry out management functions for decentralized wastewater
systems Also, states should consider consolidating legal authority for centralized and
decentralized wastewater systems under a single State agency so that all wastewater
management options are reviewed more equitably
State and local regulatory codes should be revised to allow the selection of decentralized
systems based on their ability to meet public health and environmental protection
performance standards, just as c« ntralized systems are now The development and use of
model codes can facilitate this pi ocess
o Lack of Management Programs Few communities have developed the necessary
organizational structures to effectively manage decentralized wastewater systems,
although such management programs are considered commonplace for centralized
wastewater facilities and for other services (e g, electric, telephone, water) Without
such management, decentralized systems may not provide adequate treatment of
wastewater
Overcoming the Barrier. Management programs should be developed on state, regional,
or local levels, as appropriate, to ensure that decentralized wastewater systems are sited,
designed, installed, operated, and maintained properly and that they continue to meet
public health and water quality performance standards Examples of possible
management structures (see Appendix C) should be provided to municipalities (e g,
public ownership/private maintenance) Examples of successful attempts of
implementing management progi ams should be highlighted (see Appendix E for case
studies)
o Liability and Engineering Fees Homeowners and developers are often unwilling to
accept the responsibility and potential liability associated with unfamiliar systems such as
those providing decentralized treatment Also, engineers' fees are often based on a
percentage of project cost and have little incentive for designing low cost systems
Overcoming the Banner Liability can be addressed within the context of a management
plan which will prevent failures and develop mechanisms to cover failures Engineering
fees should not be based on project cost for decentralized systems
<-
o Financial Barriers. EPA's Construction Grants program, and now the Clean Water SRF
program, have been the major source of wastewater treatment facility funding These
programs are generally available only to public entities Difficulties exist for pnvately-
owned systems in obtaining public funds under current federal and state grant and loan
programs
IV
-------
Overcoming the Earner There are a number of other federal sources of funding for
private entities The US Department of Agriculture's Rural Utility Service provides
funding through its Water and Waste Disposal loan and grant program to public entities,
Indian tabes, and organizations operated on a not-for-profit basis, such as an association,,
cooperative, or private corporations Two EPA programs, the Clean Water SRF program
for nonpoint source control and the CWA section 319 program, are also available to
private entities Public grant and loan funds for wastewater management should be
utilized to a greater extent to manage decentralized wastewater systems where eligible
Education for community officials should be provided on the these eligibilities
EPA'S ABILITY AND PLANS TO IMPLEMENT
Over the past 20 years, EPA has put considerable resources into helping small
communities meet their wastewater needs This has been accomplished in many ways
financing, public education, technical assistance, technology transfer, research, demonstrations,
and assistance with program development Most of the outreach, which includes technical
assistance and education has been grouped under the umbrella of EPA's Small Community
Outreach and Education Program (SCORE) Assistance has also been provided indirectly
through federal funding of the many associations that have come together to support small
community needs Many of these efforts continue today and will continue into the future
Described below are ongoing and planned activities and programs conducted by EPA or with
EPA assistance, which provide a framework for implementing alternatives such as decentralized
treatment systems
Funding
o Technologies funded under the Innovative and Alternative Technology provisions of the
Construction Grants program are being assessed under a technology assessment program
which will produce technical documents and fact sheets on various technologies
o The Clean Water State Revolving Fund program has funded decentralized systems in
several states since the expiration of the Construction Grants Program Loans are also
available for nonpoint source activities, including planning, design and construction
activities associated with correcting onsite system problems
o EPA is working with USDA's Rural Utility Service and HUD to provide funding to
communities in a more efficient and less burdensome manner Improved coordination
and cooperation between the Agencies is outlined in a memorandum that is in the process
of being signed by the three Agencies Follow-up actions to implement improvements
will be undertaken in fiscal years 1997 and 1998
-------
o EPA has recently announced a Hardship Grants Program for Rural Communities which
will fund wastewater treatment in communities not served by centralized wastewater
collection or treatments systems Decentralized systems may be the option of choice for
these rural, dispersed communities The program can also fund training programs that,
among other things, can assist in the development of management districts
Outreach and Education
o EPA provides yearly funding for the National Small Flows Clearinghouse to provide a
wide range of technical assistance
o The Small Towns Environmental Program (STEP) encourages the use of small alternative
systems through a grass-roots, self-help program
o The National Environmental Training Center for Small Communities (NETCSC)
supports environmental trainers through development and delivery of training curricula
and training of trainers
i
o The Rural Community Assistance Program provides technical assistance to rural
communities
Technology and Demonstrations
EPA's technology and demonstration programs, in collaboration with other stakeholders,
provide technical guidance through the following projects
o National Onsite Demonstration Project
o Updates of EPA design manuals on Onsite Systems, Small Community Technologies and
Constructed Wetlands, and a guidance document for Large Capacity Septic Systems
o Grants under the Environmental Technology Initiative to demonstrate onsite technologies
o A grant to develop a research agenda for onsite treatment
o A small community wastewater testing and verification center under EPA's
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program (discussions are underway)
ProgramDevelopment
o EPA plans to collaborate with other federal agencies to develop guidance to assist
communities in implementing management systems based on performance goals
o EPA is also encouraging planning and implementation on a watershed basis to meet water
quality goals Improved decentralized treatment is an important component of many of
these plans
VI
-------
THE ROLE OF RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES IN UPGRADING FACILITIES
Rural electric cooperatives are private entities that build and manage extensive rural
utility systems These cooperatives have the capability to address a full range of technical,
financial, administrative, and regulatory issues related to the supply and management of electric
power In the Fiscal Year 1997 House Appropriations Committee report, the Committee
acknowledged the significant interest of the cooperatives "to expand their current role of
delivering electricity to the delivery to rural communities of clean water and safe drinking water
improvement technologies as well" The Committee "is uncertain whether expansion into this
new field is an appropriate means of upgrading rural drinking and wastewater facilities to meet
federal requirements " EPA was asked to review this matter and report on its findings prior to
the Committee's fiscal year 1998 budget hearings for EPA The review is presented as an
appendix to this response (Appendix F)
In summary, drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities can be upgraded and
managed by rural electric cooperatives, although 13 states would require enabling legislation for
them to own and/or operate drinking water and wastewater facilities Cooperatives could be a
good solution in rural areas because cooperatives are non-political, known entities to the
homeowners, that bring experienced management and staff to solve the O&M challenge, as well
as options for obtaining capital The ability to provide management services, including O&M,
can be the cooperatives' most valuable asset
From the drinking water perspective, cooperatives offer great promise as management
entities for small water systems which lack institutional strength However, for many reasons, it
is unlikely that more cooperatives will make significant movements into the drinking water and
wastewater business quickly These reasons involve the interest on the part of individual owners
to pay for onsite system management, the technical ability of the cooperative to manage drinking
water and wastewater facilities, limited experience with low energy onsite technologies, and the
ability to obtain capital Once these issues are resolved, the community and cooperative may be
able to work together to efficiently provide the needed wastewater services
vn
-------
-------
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
This document addresses the Congressional Home Appropriations Committee's request
that EPA report on
(1) the Agency's analysis of the benefits of decentralized wastewater system
alternatives compared to current (i e, centralized) systems,
(2) the potential savings and/or costs associated with the use of these alternatives,
(3) the ability of the Agency to implement these alternatives within the current
statutory and regulatory structure, and
(4) the plans of the Agency, if any, to implement any such alternative measures using
funds appropriated in fiscal year 1997
Appendix F addresses the Committee's request to analyze the ability of rural electric
cooperatives to upgrade facilities in rural areas A separate response addresses privatization of
municipal wastewater facilities, also requested by the Committee
Responses to areas 1 through 4 are presented below Following this Introduction is an
analysis of the benefits of implementing decentralized treatment options (#1 above) It focuses
on the factors that influence the selection of a wastewater system in a community and the
conditions under which a decentralized or centralized system would be the best option This is
followed by an analysis of the potential costs and savings (#2 above) which examines
comparative costs for centralized and decentralized wastewater systems using two hypothetical
scenarios Next, the document highlights barriers that inhibit the expanded use of decentralized
systems and suggestions for overcoming the barriers A section follows describing EPA's ability
and plans to implement the findings (questions #3 and #4 above), with appendices supplementing
the text
The House Appropriations Committee request highlighted several alternative approaches
for managing wastewater, including
i
o Targeted upgrades of treatment systems failing at individual homes
o Innovative, high-performance technologies for pretreatment on lots characterized
by shallow soils or other adverse conditions
o Small satellite treatment plants or leaching fields in high-density areas
o Detailed watershed planning to specify precise standards for sensitive versus
non-sensitive zones
-------
o Maintenance, inspection, and water quality monitoring programs to detect failures
in onsite systems
These approaches are discussed throughout this document, particularly in the "Analysis
of Benefits" section Targeted upgrades of failing onsite systems are discussed in a variety of
contexts, including the section on "Lower Capital Costs for Low Density Communities", which
discusses why decentralized systems are most applicable for upgrading failing systems in small,
rural communities and in ecologically sensitive areas Examples of innovative or alternative
technologies that provide additional treatment for sites with shallow soils and a variety of other
hydro geological conditions are given in the section "Adaptable to Varying Site Conditions" and
many such systems are described in Appendix A, "Definitions and Descriptions of Wastewater
Systems " Small satellite treatment plants or leach fields which have low cost collector sewers
are referred to as "cluster systems" or "package plants" throughout this report Watershed
planning and standards for targeting ecologically sensitive areas are discussed in the section on
"Additional Benefits" and in Appendix B under "Comprehensive Planning " Maintenance,
inspection, and monitoring programs are described in several sections related to management
systems and Appendix C on "Managerm nt Systems "
SELECTED DEFINITIONS
Appendix A provides detailed definitions of many terms used in this document There
are several terms which are used extensively throughout this document and are defined here as
well as in Appendix A
o A decentralized system is an onsite or cluster wastewater system that is used to
treat and dispose of relatively small volumes of wastewater, generally from
individual or groups of dwellings and businesses that are located relatively close
together Onsite and cluster systems are also commonly used in combination
o An onsite system is a natural system or mechanical device used to collect, treat,
and discharge or reclaim wastewater from an individual dwelling without the use
of community-wide sewers or a centralized treatment facility A conventional
onsite system includes a septic tank and a leach field Other alternative types of
onsite systems include at grade systems, mound systems, sand filters and small
aerobic units
o A cluster system is a wastewater collection and treatment system where two or
more dwellings, but less than an entire community, are served The wastewater
from several homes may be pretreated onsite by individual septic tanks or package
plants before being transported through low cost, alternative technology sewers to
a treatment unit that is relatively small compared to centralized systems
-------
HISTORY OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
Onsite wastewater systems have been used since the mid-1800s, with technological
advances improving the systems from simple outhouses to cesspools, to-septic tanks, to some of
the more advanced treatment units available today In the 1970s and 1980s, large Federal
investments in the construction of wastewater facilities focused primarily on large, centralized
collection and treatment systems rather than on decentralized systems Federal funds for
wastewater systems increased significantly in 1972, as authorized in the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (later called the Clean Water Act) Municipalities used funds from the new
Construction Grants program to build sewers and centralized treatment facilities to meet national
standards for discharged pollutants (GAO, 1994) Between 1972 and 1990, the federal
government spent more than $62 billion in this program for constructing or upgrading treatment
facilities (Lewis, 1986)
The initial decision to install a particular system (i e , hookup to a centralized system or
use onsite systems) was primarily made in the private sector by the developer of a property,
based on affordabihty or profitability In small communities, developers often chose more
affordable onsite systems which could be easily installed for each dwelling Once installed, the
onsite system was usually not examined again unless an emergency situation arose, with
wastewater either backing up into backyards or streets even though in many cases, they were
contributing to pollution of ground water and nearby surface waters In most small communities,
outdated state and local regulatory codes still promote the continued use of poorly maintained
conventional onsite systems (a septic tank and leach field) In many of these communities, these
systems are providing adequate public health and environmental protection, but in many cases,
they are not
The 1990 Census indicates that 25 million households use conventional onsite systems or
cesspools Data on the failure rate associated with these systems is limited, a national estimate is
not available However, during 1993 alone, a total of 90,632 failures were reported, according to
a National Small Flows Clearinghouse survey of health departments across the country Failure
rates as high as 72 percent have been documented, such as in the Rouge River National
Demonstration Project Nationwide data show that failures of onsite wastewater systems are
primarily due to improper siting (e g, in low-permeability soils), improper design, poor
installation practices, insufficient operation and maintenance of the systems, and lack of
enforcement of codes Some communities, such as Stinson Beach, CA (see Appendix E) and
Warwick, RI, explored ways to prevent future failures, including managing decentralized
systems to ensure that they were operated and maintained appropriately, and using alternative
types of systems where site conditions made conventional onsite systems marginally applicable
During the 1970's, a number of state and local governments, including Gardiner, NY and Wood
County, WV, with the support of the U S EPA Research and Development programs,
experimented with different types of decentralized systems that could accommodate a variety of
site and community conditions and meet environmental protection goals if properly operated and
-------
maintained Subsequently, in the 1980'3, the Innovative and Alternative (I&A) Technology and
Small Community set-asides of the Construction Grants program resulted in the construction of
hundreds of small community technologies using centralized and decentralized approaches Both
programs provided some information on performance and costs of newer decentralized systems
Circumstances changed in 1990, when the federal Construction Grants and I&A programs
were eliminated These programs were replaced by the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
program, which provides communities with low interest loans These programs have only been
able to meet a small portion of the total needs EPA's 1992 Needs Survey estimated the nation's
documented wastewater needs to be $137 billion, with an increase of 39 percent from 1990 to
1992 (EPA, 1993) Small community needs comprised approximately 10 percent (over $13
billion) of total unmet needs in 1992 Furthermore, EPA estimated that replacing failing septic
systems with new centralized system sewers and treatment facilities accounted for 40 percent of
the small community needs (EPA, 1993)
Managed decentralized wastewater systems are viable, long-term alternatives to
centralized wastewater facilities where (ost-effective, particularly in small and rural
communities Decentralized systems already serve one-quarter of the population nationwide, and
50% of the population in some states These systems merit serious consideration in any
evaluation of wastewater management options for small and mid-sized communities and new
development In some cases, combinations of decentralized and centralized arrangements will be
useful to solve diverse conditions
-------
Chapter 2
ANALYSIS OF BENEFITS
WASTEWATER SYSTEM GOALS
Wastewater systems have two fundamental goals
o Protection of public health (e g, from waterborne disease-causing organisms such
as bacteria, from high nitrate levels in ground water)
o Protection of the environment (e g, protection of surface waters from
eutrophication caused by excess phosphorus and nitrogen)
If properly sited, designed, installed and managed over their service lives, decentralized
wastewater systems can, and do, meet both public health and environmental protection goals in
areas where centralized treatment is impractical or not cost-effective This section discusses why
a decentralized system is often the most feasible choice for small communities
The Clean Water Act, as amended, identifies federal requirements for wastewater
treatment facilities discharging to waters of the U S , i e , a minimum of secondary treatment and
water quality standards Decentralized systems which discharge to a surface water must, and
can," meet these requirements Conventional onsite systems discharge effluent through the soils
to the groundwater Groundwater can be protected with properly maintained onsite systems or
with additional treatment to control nutrients
In addition, the Safe Drinking Water Act addresses the risk to groundwater quality posed
by the large capacity septic systems (systems with the capacity to serve 20 or more persons per
day) EPA includes large capacity septic systems as a type of Class V well which are regulated
within the Underground Injection Control program to protect ground waters
BENEFITS OF DECENTRALIZED WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
For certain communities and site conditions, managed decentralized wastewater systems
are the most technically appropriate and economical means for treating wastewater when
compared to centralized treatment systems The primary benefits of using decentralized systems
are
o Protects public health and the environment
o Lower capital and maintenance costs for low density communities
o Adaptable to varying site conditions
o Additional benefits
-------
How these factors affect the self, ction of wastewater systems is discussed below For a
more detailed discussion of cost-effectiveness, see the "Potential Costs and Savings" section of
this document
Protects Public Health and the Environment
Properly managed decentralized wastewater systems can provide the treatment necessary
to protect public health and the environment including groundwater and surface waters, just as
well as centralized systems Decentralized systems can usually be sited, designed, installed and
operated to meet all federal and state required effluent standards for biological oxygen demand
(BOD), total suspended solids (TSS) and fecal conform Effective advanced treatment units are
available for additional nutrient removal and disinfection requirements for both types of systems,
as well
Centralized systems frequently lesult in large watershed transfers of waters, whereas
decentralized systems when used effectively promote the return of treated wastewater within the
watershed of origin Managed decentralized systems can effectively minimize the impacts of
these interbasm water transfers
Lower Capital and Maintenance Coste for Low Density Communities
In areas with low population densities (approximately one dwelling or less per acre),
decentralized onsite wastewater systems often are the most cost-effective option for upgrading
failing septic systems or serving new development Constructing new centralized systems in
rural areas is often economically unfeasible because of the distances between homes, the
significant piping required to tie-in all the connections, and the inability to achieve economies of
scale (i e, a certain number of users to support system costs)
In urban and suburban areas with high population densities (more than three to four
dwellings per acre), large-scale, centralized collection and treatment of wastewater is usually
most cost-effective
For areas with moderate population densities (one dwelling per one-half to one acre)
located at moderate distances from a centralized treatment facility, the choice of a centralized or
decentralized wastewater system may vary by neighborhood based on local conditions
Moderately populated areas may effectively use decentralized cluster wastewater systems that
serve two or more (up to several hundred is possible) homes and are located close to the
dwellings they serve These cluster syslems are cost-effective in many cases because they use
smaller, less expensive collection pipes that travel relatively short distances to smaller, less
maintenance intensive treatment units (often with soil disposal or reuse of effluent) As long as
homes are relatively close together, cluster systems may be cost-competitive with numerous
individual onsite systems
-------
Adaptable to Varying Site Conditions
In the past, when fewer types of decentralized wastewater systems were available, certain
site conditions, such as high ground-water tables, impervious soils, shallow bedrock or limestone
formations, were considered limiting factors that precluded decentralized systems In many
cases, septic tank/leach field systems were nonetheless used at many such sites, with inadequate
subsequent protection of surface and ground water Today, however, decentralized systems can
usually be designed for a specific site and its hydrogeological conditions For example, sand
mounds systems are designed specifically for sites with high ground water Decentralized
wastewater systems now allow greater flexibility and are often combined into treatment trains to
meet a range of treatment goals and site conditions A treatment train might include a septic tank
and recirculating sand filter (or other types of technologies) to greatly reduce BOD, TSS,
nitrogen, and bactena levels, a relatively small leach field (a larger leach field becomes
unnecessary with the additional treatment provided by a sand filter or other treatment units), and
multiple dosing of effluent to the leach field on sites with excessively permeable soils
Additional Benefits
Decentralized systems can be advantageous in ecologically sensitive areas, where
treatment must be specifically targeted to local environmental concerns (e g , ground water
protection and protection of off-shore shellfish beds or where construction of centralized
collection systems may disrupt the ecosystem) Also, most decentralized onsite systems
inherently include on-lot water reuse and ground-water recharge The wastewater can be treated
by decentralized systems to a specified level and then retained for reuse near (usually outdoors)
the home or facility (e g , outside for irrigating the landscape) Sucji reuse is most common in
industrial settings and is beginning to occur in commercial settings (e g , office parks, golf
courses), however, certain types of industrial facilities may require pretreatment if wastes are
toxic In certain water-short states (e g , Arizona, California, Florida, Texas), such reuse is even
practiced in residential settings
CONCLUSION
Communities Can Use Combinations of Decentralized Wastewater Systems
For communities with a diversity of locales, the best option might be to use a
combination of wastewater systems For example, in more densely populated areas, hookup to a
centralized facility might be most cost-effective Decentralized cluster systems could be chosen
for less densely populated fringe areas currently under development and for use in ecologically
sensitive areas Onsite systems could be used in the more rural areas Considering all possible
options and their combinations is the best approach to managing wastewater needs to achieve the
most cost-effective solution for a variety of site conditions and community goals
-------
Chapter 3
POTENTIAL COSTS AND SAVINGS
Cost is a key factor that affects the selection of wastewater management options for a
community The cost of these options varies depending on specific community characteristics,
including population size and density, topography, distance to an existing treatment facility, and
local performance requirements These variables make it difficult to present a valid national
comparison of costs for decentralized and centralized systems To illustrate the differences in the
cost-effectiveness of various technology options, cost estimates were developed for two
hypothetical communities Several components of the cost estimates presented may vary
considerably from community to community, and may impact the cost-effectiveness of one
technology option over another option For example, land costs vary regionally and may be
prohibitive in some communities for construction of large treatment facilities
Descriptions of the two hypothetical communities on which cost estimates were based are
presented below, followed by a summary of the technology options considered for different areas
in the communities with different population and site characteristics, and a comparative summary
of costs for different types of wastewater management options
Costs are based on a variety of sources, including cost equations for centralized collection
developed by Dames and Moore (based on Smith, 1978), centralized treatment costs presented in
the WAWTTAR computer model developed at Humboldt State University (Gearheart et al,
1994), costs for small diameter gravity sewers presented in EPA documents (EPA, 1991, EPA
Region IV, n d) and in Abney, 1976, cluster treatment costs presented in Abney, 1976 and Otis,
1996, onsite system treatment and operation and maintenance costs used in the COSMO
computer model, developed at North Cai olina State University (Renkow and Hoover, 1996),
average land purchase costs, based on data for North Carolina, and equipment and labor costs
based on data from Wisconsin A detailed description of the cost estimation methodologies used
for each type of wastewater collection and treatment technology is presented in Appendix D
COMMUNITY PROFILES
Costs are presented for (1) a hypothetical small, rural community, and (2) a hypothetical
community located on the fringes of a metropolitan center (referred to as the "fringe"
community) The profiles of both types of communities are described below
Rural Community - The rural community has a population of 450 people living in 135
homes These homes are located on 1-acre lots or larger lots and are serviced by conventional
onsite wastewater systems consisting of septic tanks and leach fields, wastewater is transported
from the tanks to the leach fields through gravity distribution About 50 percent of the onsite
8
-------
systems (67 systems) are currently failing due to inadequate sizing, inappropriate site conditions,
or lack of maintenance As shown in Figure la, these 67 failing systems are located in the
northeastern section of the community near a nver where there is a high water table and a
prevalence of soils with low permeability
Fringe Community - The fringe community, located 10 miles from the nearest city, has
a current population of 770 people in 220 homes, but is expected to grow to a total population of
1,550 people in 443 homes located on 1/2-acre lots The existing homes are serviced by
conventional onsite wastewater systems consisting of septic tanks and leach fields, wastewater is
transported from the tanks to the leach fields through gravity distribution As shown in Figure
Ib, about 50 percent of the existing onsite systems (110 systems) are currently failing due to
inappropriate site conditions, including a high water table and soils with low permeability, and
lack of maintenance The metropolitan area is serviced by a centralized collection and treatment
facility with unused capacity (10 miles away)
For comparative purposes, costs for centralized, cluster, and decentralized onsite systems
are provided for both the rural and fringe communities, as described below
TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS AND PERFORMANCE GOALS
The technology options considered for the rural and fringe communities are summarized
below All of the options considered are assumed to be capable of achieving the secondary
treatment standard of 30 mg/L for BOD and TSS, as well as disinfection goals for significant
bacteria reduction, disinfection of cluster and onsite system effluent is provided by physical and
biological processes as the effluent moves through the soil
Appendix D ("Cost Estimation Methodology") provides a detailed description of each
technology, the methodologies and assumptions used in developing the cost estimates, and the
capital costs and annual operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for each technology Appendix
D also includes a discussion of how costs were indexed to 1995 dollars
Rural Community - Wastewater options considered for the rural community include
o Centralized system - New conventional gravity collection servicing the entire rural
community and construction of a new centralized treatment facility, with
treatment consisting of a facultative oxidation pond and disinfection This has
been the most frequently used option to address the small community problems
described in this report
o Cluster systems - New alternative collection (small diameter gravity sewers
[SDGS]) and construction of new small cluster treatment systems, each consisting
of a sand filter and a central leach field (cluster systems would be installed only
-------
Direction of ground-water flow
n n a
a
D Each square represents 10 rural homes with properly functomng onstfe systems
Each square represents 10 rural homes with felling ongite systems
All homes on 1-acre or larger lots
Figure la - Base Map of Hypothetical Rural Community
10
-------
no
Existing Fnnge Community
Metropolitan
Center
O Each square represents 20 fhnge community homes with properly Sanctioning onsite system?
Each square represents 20 fringe community homes with failing onsite systems
J_ Each square represents 20 fringe community homes - expected new development
All homes on 1/2-acre or smaller lots
Figure Ib - Base Map of Hypothetical Fringe Community
11
-------
where onsite systems are currently failing, properly functioning onsite systems
would continue in use)
o Onsite systems - Replacement of failing conventional onsite systems (septic tanks
and leach fields) with new onsite systems consisting of septic tanks, intermittent
sand filters where necessary, and leach fields, low pressure pipe (LPP)
distribution would be used to transport the wastewater from the septic tanks up to,
and through the leach fields The sand filters and LPP distribution address the
issues of a high ground-water table and low-permeability soils
Fringe Community - Wastewater options considered for the fringe community include
o Centralized system (two options considered) - A new conventional gravity
collection system connected to an existing centralized treatment facility that
currently serves the main municipality In option 1, the facility has sufficient
collection and treatment capacity, and in option 2, the facility has sufficient
capacity to handle the added load to the sewers, but requires additional treatment
capacity Treatment for both centralized options is provided by a sequencing
batch reactor (SBR) with grit removal, screening, disinfection, and sludge
disposal
o Cluster systems - New alternative collection (small diameter gravity sewers
[SDGS]) and construction of new small cluster treatment systems, each consisting
of a central sand filter and a central leach field, for new homes, the installation of
new onsite septic tanks which connect to the SDGS
o Onsite systems - For existing homes, replacement of failing onsite systems with
new onsite systems consisting of septic tanks, intermittent sand filters where
necessary, and leach fields, with wastewater transported up to, and through the
leach fields with low pressure pipe (LPP) distribution, for new homes, installation
of new onsite systems consisting of septic tanks and leach fields, with wastewater
transported to the leach fields with low pressure pipe distribution (LPP)
SUMMARY OF COSTS
Cost summaries and comparisons, for each technology option considered are presented
below Costs include the capital costs ne cessary to install the system(s) and the annual costs to
operate and maintain the system(s) Capital costs were annualized over 30 years (the life of the
system) for each technology option using a discount rate of 7 percent (OMB, 1996) All costs
are presented in 1995 dollars Table 1 presents a summary of the estimated costs for the rural
community Similarly, Table 2 presents the costs for the fringe community
12
-------
Table 1 Summary of Rural Community Technology Costs
Technology Option1
Centralized systems3
Alternative SDGS collection and
small cluster systems4
Onsite systems5
Total Capital Cost
(1995$)
$2,321,840 - $3,750,530
$598,100
$510,000
Annual 0&M
-Cost2
(1995 f>
9
$29,740 - $40,260
$7,290*
$13,400*
Note The rural community consists of 450 people in 135 homes
Total Annual
Cost (Annuahzed
Capital Phis
O&M - 1995 $)
$216,850 - $342,500
$55,500
$54,500
'All technology options presented are assumed to have a 30-year life span
2O&M costs include centralized system - treatment chemicals such as chlorine and sulfur dioxide, energy to run
equipment such as mixers, pumps and aerators and labor cluster system -yearly inspections of onsite components
including sand filter, quarterly inspections of the central leach field 10-year pumpouts of individual septic tanks
replacement of distribution pump every 10 years, onsite systems - quarterly inspections of systems, including septic tanks,
leach fields and sand filters pumpouts of septic tanks and replacement of distribution pumps every 10 years, the
establishment of an organization to provide wastewater management assumes that maintenance of all existing and future
onsite systems will be performed therefore the annual O&M cost estimates include costs for new systems as well as
existing onsite systems that are still functioning effectively
Represents conventional gravity collection and construction of a new centralized treatment plant within the rural area
consisting of a facultative oxidation pond and disinfection the conventional gravity collection system costed for the rural
community was evaluated for two population densities (1 home per acre and 1 home per 5 acres) and therefore a range of
costs are presented for this technology option
4Includes intermittent sand filters and gravity distribution to leach fields where onsite systems are failing
5lhcludes replacement of failing onsite systems with (1) onsite systems consisting of septic tanks with LPP distribution to
leach fields where soils have poor drainage and (2) onsite systems consisting of septic tanks and sand filters with LPP
distribution to leach fields where water table is high
6O&M costs for cluster systems are lower than O&M costs for onsite systems because of the lower labor requirements for
operating and maintaining a single centralized sand filter and leach field in a cluster system than for opening and
maintaining up to 135 individual onsite sand filters and leach fields
13
-------
Table 2 Summary of Fringe Community Technology Costs
Technology Option1
Centralized systems3 -
System type #1
at 1 mile from existing sewer
at 5 miles from existing sewer
System type #2
at 1 mile from existing sewer
at 5 miles from existing sewer
Alternative SDGS collection and small
cluster systems4
Onsite systems5
Total Capital Cost
(1995$)
$3,322,900
$5,377,800
$3,786,900
$5,841,800
$3,783,700
$2,117,100
Annual O&M
* .Cost2/': ,
.(1995$)
$83,800
$95,900
$83,800
$95,900
$18,0006
$59,2406
Total Annual
Cost (Annuah/efl
Capital Plus
O&M ^1995$)
$351,600
$529,300
$389,000
$566,700
$322,900
$229,900
Note The fringe community consists of 1,550 people in 443 homes (includes future growth")
'AH technology options presented are assumed to have a 30-year life span
*O&M costs include centralized system - treatment chemicals such as chlorine and sulfur dioxide energy to run equipment
such as mixers, pumps, and aerators, and labor cluster system - yearly inspections of onsite components including sand
filter quarterly inspections of the central leach field 10-year pumpouts of individual septic tanks, replacement of distribution
pump every 10 years onsite systems - quarterly inspections of systems including septic tanks leach fields and sand filters,
pumpouts of septic tanks and replacement of distribution pumps every 10 years the establishment of an organization to
provide wastewater management assumes that maintpnanee of all existing and future onsite systems will be performed
therefore the annual O&M cost estimates include costs for new systems as well as existing onsite systems mat are still
functioning effectively
'System type #1 represents conventional gravity collection connected to an existing sewer and treatment system that already
has adequate capacity to handle the additional load System type #2 represents conventional gravity collection connected to an
existing sewer system that already has adequate sewi r capacity but requires expanded treatment capcity to handle the
additional load For both systems, treatment consist) of an SBR and disinfection
4Includes central intermittent sand filters and gravity distribution to central leach fields
'Represents onsite systems consisting of septic tanks with LPP distribution to leach fields for new homes replacement of
failing onsite systems with (1) onsite systems consisting of septic tanks with LPP distribution to leach fields where soils have
poor drainage and (2) onsite systems consisting of septic tanks and sand filters with LPP distribution to leach fields where
water table is high
6O&M costs for cluster systems are tower than O&M costs for onsite systems because of the lower labor requirements for
operating and maintaining a single centralized sand filter and leach field in a cluster system than for opening and maintaining
up to 443 individual onsite sand filters and leach fields
14
-------
Rural Community Costs - As shown in Table 1, for the rural community, the most
cost-effective option for meeting performance goals is using new onsite systems to replace the
old onsite systems that are failing The newer onsite systems will include low pressure pipe
distribution (LPP) to achieve effective operation in areas with poor soil drainage, and sand filter
and LPP in areas with a high water table to provide additional treatment before the effluent
reaches the water table The use of cluster systems with alternative collection for the failing
onsite systems is not significantly more expensive, if soils were unsuitable for onsite systems,
the cluster alternative would be the best choice As the distance between homes in the rural area
increases, however, cluster system collection costs would increase Compared to the onsite or
cluster system options, centralized collection and treatment is not cost-effective
Fringe Community Costs - A summary of the estimated costs for the fringe community
is presented in Table 2, including total capital costs, annual O&M costs, and the total annual cost
(i e, annuahzed capital plus annual O&M) for each option
Table 2 shows that for the fringe community, in this instance, installing new onsite
systems to replace the old onsite systems that are failing and new onsite systems for new homes
would be the most cost-effective option However, construction of cluster systems with
alternative collection might be the preferred option in this type of growing community where
space may be limited for individual onsite systems In cases where a fnnge community is
relatively close to a sewer interceptor (e g, 1 mile), and the existing centralized collection and
treatment facility can accept the additional wastewater loadings, it might be cost-effective If a
fringe community is located relatively far from a sewer interceptor (e g, 5 miles), centralized
collection and treatment may not be cost-effective, especially if treatment and collection facilities
require upgrading to handle additional flows These results are typical of fringe communities,
which are often "gray" areas regarding costs, that is, depending on their proximity to existing
centralized facilities and their population densities, the most cost-effective option for fringe
communities often vanes depending on site-specific conditions Long term growth also may be
a factor in determining the most appropriate solution Additionally, the assimilative capacity of
the receiving environment may limit the utility of centralized systems that discharge to surface
waters
CONCLUSIONS
Results of the cost analysis indicate decentralized systems, whether onsite or cluster
systems, are generally cost effective means of managing wastewater in rural communities due to
the distance between homes and land availability In small communities and fringe areas of
metropolitan cities, the most cost effective solution depends on population density, distance to
the sewer interceptor, and availability of land The centralized alternative can be competitive
with decentralized options in fringe areas, where the distance to the intercepting sewer is less
than 5 miles and the receiving water body can accommodate the additional waste load Although
excluded from this analysis, the relative costs of failure for centralized systems can be far greater,
given that all wastewater is concentrated at a central location (point source)
15
-------
Chapter 4
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTING
DECENTRALIZED WASTEWATER TREATMENT OPTIONS
Several important barriers currently inhibit the expanded use of decentralized wastewater
systems, including
o Lack of knowledge and mispereeption of decentralized systems
o Statutory and regulatory barriers at the state and local level, including
Lack of enabling legislation
Legislative authority that is split between agencies
Prescriptive regulatory codes
i
!
o Lack of adequate management programs for decentralized systems in many
regions
o Liability and engineering fee issues
o Financial limitations
These banners, and steps that have or can be taken to overcome them, are discussed
below
LACK OF KNOWLEDGE AND MISPERCEPTION OF DECENTRALIZED SYSTEMS
Public health officials, engineers, regulators, system designers, inspectors and developers
often possess only limited knowledge of the broad range of decentralized wastewater systems
because these technologies are not adequately covered in university engineering curricula
Decentralized systems are perceived to be inadequate for meeting specified public health and
water quality goals Centralized wastewater treatment facilities meet these goals by complying
with regulatory and permit standards (e g, secondary treatment standards of 30 mg/L TSS and
BOD) Appropriately sited and adequately designed and maintained, decentralized wastewater
systems can meet public health and water quality goals, as well
Typically, onsite systems are perceived as the standard septic tank and leach field
(referred to as conventional onsite systems in this document) However, alternative onsite
systems include other types of decentralized systems, such as mound systems or sand filters
Conventional onsite systems can pose a threat to ground water, however, these systems can be
16
-------
designed to alleviate the threat through retrofitting existing treatment trains or with new systems
that include the appropriate unit processes (Anderson et al, 1985, Ayres, 1991, Ball, 1995,
Boyle, 1995, Cagle and Johnson, 1994, Mines and Favreau, 1975, Jenssen and Siegnst, 1990,
Laak, 1986, Piluk and Peters, 1994, Soltman, 1989, Tchobanoglous and Burton, 1991)
Recognizing that performance standards should apply to any type of wastewater system, a few
states, including Florida, North Carolina, Washington and Wisconsin, have recently begun the
process of setting performance standards for decentralized systems
Homeowners are frequently uninformed about how their conventional onsite systems
work, how to maintain them, and about the potential for human health and ecosystem risks from
poorly functioning systems The prevailing public perception of conventional onsite systems is
they are maintenance free Regulators and technical professionals may have little experience
with alternative systems because these technologies are not included in their educational
curricula and little effective training is available
Another factor blocking acceptance of decentralized systems is the lack of comprehensive
performance and cost data, or where data is available, an evaluation of the results is needed
EPA's Innovative and Alternative Technology program yielded a limited number of technology
evaluations before the program and efforts to conduct assessments ended In 1995, EPA began
to fund the assessment effort again EPA-funded assessments and fact sheets on these
technologies will be published in the near future, but these efforts will mostly cover surface
water discharge technologies
Overcoming the Lack of Knowledge Barrier Education is critical to effective efforts
to encourage the acceptance and use of decentralized systems Those who choose, design, and
use these systems need to know that mey perform well if properly managed Information on
what proper management entails should be readily available and widely distributed Professional
training and certification programs should cover regulatory code requirements, system siting,
soils fieldwork, design, construction, monitoring and maintenance,. Federal, state, local, or
private agencies can provide classroom and in-field training Six states, Arizona, Missouri,
North Carolina, Rhode Island, Texas, and Washington, currently have training programs for
sanitarians and installers Since the advent of these programs, state regulatory officials (in North
Carolina, for example) have allowed the utilization of a much broader array of advanced onsite
technologies under the condition that these systems are managed by professional, certified
operators Similar training and certification programs in other states are a necessary precursor to
broad scale use of decentralized technologies With the participation of nationally recognized
authorities and product manufacturers and the issuance of certificates of competency, these
programs could produce a well-trained field of regulators and service providers
In addition, educational materials for homeowners should explain proper wastewater
disposal and maintenance practices and the consequences of system failures Informed,
responsible homeowners would help ensure that their systems are operated and maintained
17
-------
properly and they will be more likely to support new management programs Training and
education to increase awareness about decentralized wastewater systems should help reduce both
the number of failing systems and adverse impacts on pound and surface water
Establishment of testing centers for verification of decentralized wastewater treatment
technologies is expected in the future and can enhance the confidence that these systems will
perform as designed States would need to agree to accept the testing results from these centers
STATE/LOCAL STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BARRIERS
Decentralized wastewater systems are primarily governed by state and local jurisdictions
Only three states do not have specific regulations governing decentralized systems (in California,
Georgia, and Michigan, decentralized systems are governed at the local level) (NSFC, 1995
This reference also provides a matrix of the components of all existing state regulations for
decentralized wastewater systems ) However, existing laws and regulations can be barriers to
implementing decentralized systems In many cases, states and/or localities*
o Lack adequate enabling legislation to support proper management of
decentralized systems
o Divide the legislative authority for public health and water quality protection
between two or more branches of government, resulting in inequitable
consideration of centralized and decentralized wastewater options and in
inadequate management of decentralized systems
o Enact prescriptive regulalory codes that narrowly define the types of wastewater
systems allowed, regardk ss of the fact that other types of systems can meet
performance and regulatory standards
*
These regulatory barriers as well as recommended changes are discussed below
Lack of Enabling Legislation..- Agencies responsible for decentralized wastewater
systems must be vested with the powers necessary to effectively manage them, such as the right
to access private property to inspect systems and correct system malfunctions But state enabling
legislation may not refer to decentralized wastewater systems or it may be vague or uncertain
regarding legal powers to perform important management functions Limited or unclear
authority can prevent an agency from establishing a successful management program, which is a
vital factor in ensuring mat decentralized systems do not fail in the future
Legislative Authority Split Between Agencies - Typically, state statutes divide legal
authority for wastewater systems between state departments of health which are responsible for
18
-------
state sanitary codes for decentralized wastewater systems, and state departments of
environmental protection which are responsible for regulations governing surface-water
discharges, issuance of NPDES permits, including those for centralized wastewater facilities, and
various water quality programs In some states, some aspects of onsite system regulation resides
with, state planning authorities or housing development agencies Thus, legal authority for the
two types of systems fall under separate, and confusing, legal jurisdictions at a fundamental
level Regulatory officials responsible for water quality programs historically have not
considered decentralized wastewater systems as an acceptable option, and certainly not an option
of equal stature with centralized facilities for protection of water quality
Legal authority often is split between state and local governments County governments
are often delegated the task of developing and managing on-site disposal programs Delegation
of tasks to local entities from state government can and does work for wastewater management
Wastewater and water quality guidance coming from a single, centralized legal authority which
clarifies responsibilities and facilitates selection and management of a centralized and/or
decentralized system, whichever is most appropnate for the local circumstances
Overcoming the Legal Earners Several steps can be taken to develop the requisite
state enabling legislation and related legal authority Existing legislative authority and
institutional structures should be reviewed and be used, if possible, to minimize costs and
simplify the regulatory process For example, a simple local code enacted by a municipal or
county health department for regular inspection and pumping might be adequate to significantly
reduce onsite system failures in an area Another example is that existing provisions for
ground-water, septage, or general improvement districts could be used to establish a complete
management program (Shephard, 1996)
If, however, existing legal authority is insufficient for implementing management
responsibilities, state laws could be modified to extend the powers of relevant organizations (e g,
those that already manage centralized wastewater systems or other utilities) to cover the
management of decentralized systems, to allow access to private property, or to create new
management structures with necessary powers
Some states or communities have developed or adopted model ordinances or legal
agreements, such as the state of Iowa and the community of Kueka Lake, NY (see Appendix E)
Examples include entering into service agreements with homeowners for system maintenance
(conducted by either a local agency or a private contractor), obtaining property easements for
inspections of decentralized systems, and establishing clear public/private ownership, inspection,
operation, maintenance, and financial assurance responsibilities for cluster systems Some cases
may require special legislation that authorizes the creation of new entities (such as management
districts) with explicit responsibilities for managing decentralized systems (see "Structure of the
Management Program" below) Other states should use the model legislation to measure their
current legislation against and make adjustments as needed
19
-------
The best way to clarify legislati ye authority is to consolidate programs for centralized and
decentralized wastewater systems (e g , in the state environmental protection agency or state
health agency) Authority for specific management functions could then be delegated as
appropriate to regional and local agencies Such consolidation would allow for a comprehensive
analysis and equitable appraisal of waslewater needs and how water quality goals could be best
met In addition, consolidating programs on the state and local levels fosters accountability and
management program coordination for decentralized systems, which have heretofore not enjoyed
much of either
State and Local Codes Stifle Consideration of Decentralized Systems - State and local
regulatory codes often prohibit or restrict the use of alternative onsite systems These codes
require the presence of a certain type of soil in order to build Several factors influence the
development of these codes, including inadequate performance data on alternatives, system
complexity, and (most of all) lack of trained staff
In addition, some communities have restricted decentralized wastewater systems to
conventional onsite systems with large lot requirements (e g , 2 to 5 acres) as a way to control
increasing development densities and "maintain the character" of a community These two
subjects (onsite system requirements and land use) should be kept separate, land use control
should be performed by zoning agencies, not public health agencies Without the technical or
financial resources to evaluate alternatives or provide necessary management, state and local
governments rely on conventional septic tank/leach field systems and codify inflexible, overly
conservative specifications that allow only passive, seemingly "maintenance-free" designs
(Shephard, 1996) This approach continues to delay the need to address the real problem, which
is the lack of a comprehensive management program for both conventional and alternative
systems that would ensure their proper siting, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and
monitoring With such management, sjrstems could be assessed and selected according to their
ability to meet regional and local performance standards and their suitability for site-specific
conditions
Obtaining case-by-case variances from these restrictive regulatory codes is usually a
cumbersome and expensive process When a failing onsite septic system needs to be retrofitted
or replaced quickly to protect public health and the environment, timely approval for an
alternative system is unlikely The result is continued use of an ineffective septic tank/leach field
system or an expensive expansion of a c entralized system
Overcoming the Regulatory Barners The prescriptive regulatory approach (i e , with
state or local regulations prescribing specific types of systems and design parameters for sites
meeting minimum conditions) currentlj* followed m most states generally works only for sites
with "ideal" soil and water conditions In reality, however, most sites have less-than-ideal
conditions
20
-------
To address varying site conditions, a few communities have established a combination of
prescriptive- and performance-based approaches They allow prescriptive designs for sites where
conventional septic-tank/leach field systems can function properly Performance standards are
used for sites with limiting soil and water conditions (e g, high ground-water tables,
low-permeability soils, inadequate soil depth), for environmentally sensitive areas (e g, coastal
bays), in locations experiencing rapid development, and in areas where regional pollution
problems already exist
Some changes in the regulatory approval process that facilitate the use of decentralized
systems have occurred or are underway For example, a few state or local codes (e g, ui
Kentucky, North Carolina and West Virginia) now include provisions allowing specific types of
alternative systems, such as mounds or sand filters (although then" use may be allowed only
under certain conditions) A few states are also setting performance standards that would allow
designers to select any type of system, as long as it is proven to meet the standards These
standards should specify the quality of the effluent discharged to the groundwater for all types of
decentralized systems
It should be noted, however, that some states attempting to set performance standards
have been sued by involved parties who view the performance standards (which are equivalent to
discharge standards) for new decentralized systems as too stringent State officials and the
regulated communities are currently re-evaluating specific standards The problem has arisen
because performance standards are not necessarily equivalent to effluent standards In the case
of surface discharge, where a centralized wastewater system discharges directly to surface water,
the performance standards set for the facility are the same as the effluent quality standards For
decentralized systems that discharge to ground water, however, performance standards will be
different from final effluent standards The standard must account for the soil providing
additional treatment before the wastewater reaches the pound water, the ground water quality
and use, and the point of monitoring
LACK bF ADEQUATE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Few communities have developed organizational structures for managing decentralized
wastewater systems, although such programs are required for centralized wastewater facilities
and for other services (e g, electric, telephone, water, etc ) Instead, state regulations prescribe
the specifications and design of decentralized systems, and enforcement of these regulations falls
to local agencies, often with limited authority, expertise, and staff Inconsistent laws and policies
have resulted in large, urban centralized wastewater facilities being effectively managed, while
small, rural decentralized wastewater systems are frequently unmanaged
The experience of many communities has shown, however, that to protect ground and
surface water, decentralized systems, whether for individual or multiple dwellings, must be
^managed from site evaluation and design, through the life of the system For individual
21
-------
dwellings, homeowners are responsible for managing their systems Inadequate operation and a
lack of routine maintenance for these systems have led to system failures and the resulting
perception that decentralized systems ai e less reliable than centralized facilities
An important objective of a management program for decentralized wastewater systems
is to ensure that the systems perform satisfactorily over their service lives In the past decade,
some government officials and private utizens have begun to address the problem of failing
septic systems m the context of water quality protection, rather than merely as part of private real
estate transactions This shift in perspective reinforces the need for communities to develop
comprehensive management programs for decentralized systems
The incentives for establishing proactive management programs for decentralized
wastewater systems include better onsite system performance and environmental protection,
extended life of the system, significant cost savings, planning flexibility, assistance for individual
homeowners and developers m meeting requirements, and economic benefits accruing from the
use of local contractors (Shephard, 1996)
Figure 2 depicts the typical functions of a wastewater management program, which
include system planning, legal and financial needs and responsibilities, program coordination,
supervision, of installation, operation and maintenance requirements, public participation and
education, inspection schedules and monitoring programs The planning process for wastewater
management is described m Appendix B
Generally, operation and maintenance requirements for decentralized systems are less
complex, and less costly, than operation and maintenance requirements for centralized systems
Overcoming the Lack of Management Barriers - Management programs should be
developed on state, regional, or local levels, as appropriate, to ensure that decentralized
wastewater systems are sited, designed, installed, operated, and maintained properly and that
they continue to meet public health and water quality performance standards
Structure ofthe Management Program Selecting a ManagementAgency - The structure
of a management program depends on the functions to be performed and the resources of the
community The institutional structure should include mechanisms for proposing and enforcing
regulations, performing system inspections and maintenance, and monitoring program
performance
Many small communities have unpaid or part-tune officials with no technical knowledge
in wastewater management and minimal experience working with other levels of government
Therefore, the success or failure of a management program for decentralized wastewater systems
may depend significantly on the choice of a management agency Once a community defines
specific functions needed to support system operation, it has to determine whether existing
22
-------
tp*clf1c min»f«m»ot «g«ncy (i a scroll dismet
authority municipal government county agcncws regions! agwa»s
State 39»nCi9i FtGatat »gef>ci«5 pmaia organizations ana ditMr groum)
and
-------
organizations have the statutory authority and resources to carry out these functions If existing
institutions lack certain legal powers, legislative modifications may be necessary (see
"Regulatory Barriers" above)
Several types of management arrangements are possible, which may involve existing
local agencies, pnvate organizations, or a combination of agencies and organizations, as
described in Appendix C In some cast s, such as where wastewater management crosses
junsdictional boundaries, coordinated planning and sharing of natural, financial, and human
resources may be necessary, possibly through inter-junsdictional agreements Existing or
planned water protection programs may be a logical place to incorporate wastewater
management programs Different types of entities can provide management services including
local government, pnvate industry, and in some rural areas, management by rural electric
cooperatives is being considered (see Appendix F)
Financing the Management Program - Effective management will increase the cost of
decentralized wastewater systems, whic h currently have little, inadequate, or no management in
many areas A variety of financing opt ions commonly used by utilities and other service
providers may be adapted to decentrali/ed systems, however, not all management entities have
the legal authority to implement each option The management entity selected may determine
the type of financing available (i e, whether the program will be eligible for federal or state
grants, whether taxing is an option, or whether user fees can be collected)
Commonly used financing mechanisms applicable to wastewater management systems
include
o User fees o Connection fees
o Service fees o Special tax assessments
o Property taxes o Federal, state, or pnvate grants or loans
o Punitive fees o License fees
o Permit fees
Some states and communities are also using creative funding mechanisms for water
quality protection such as tobacco taxes, lottery revenues or license plate programs that could be
used to partially fund onsite programs, especially retrofitting existing systems
The issue of eligibility for public funding is discussed below in "Financial Earners "
Management programs for decentralized wastewater systems should, if possible, include a
reserve fund to cover management functions and to alleviate some of the liability issues
discussed below
24
-------
LIABILITY AND ENGINEERING FEE ISSUES
One of the factors that has impeded the acceptance and use of innovative and alternative
onsite systems is the potential risk of installing systems that do not perform as anticipated Due
to this nsk, regulators have, in many cases, not provided an environment that is conducive to
trying out new systems In some cases, the requirements to install and operate such systems are
so administratively or economically burdensome (e g, redundant systems) that they inhibit new
or experimental solutions As a result, homeowners or developers are often unwilling to accept
the liability incurred with alternative systems In the 1970s and 1980s, EPA's Innovative and
Alternative (I&A) Technology Program provided grants of up to 100 percent of the cost for
modifying or replacing I/A systems that felled to perform according to their design standards
The I&A program was terminated in 1990, and the current Clean Water State Revolving Fund
program contains no similar "modification and replacement" provision Thus this type of nsk
insurance no longer exists for the use of decentralized wastewater systems (GAO, 1994) In
addition, the issue of liability has been raised in various communities where the use of
decentralized cluster systems appears appropriate Small communities are thus hesitant to
choose these systems, despite their apparent advantages
Engineers also face financial disincentives m designing lower cost decentralized systems
since engineers' fees are sometimes based on a percentage of the project cost
Overcoming the Liability and Fee Barrier Liability can be addressed within the
context of a management program, which can establish ongoing operation and mauitenance
programs to prevent system failures and mechanisms for coveting failures should they occur
(e g, through federal or commercial insurance programs or escrow of a designated portion of
system fees) Engineers can also obtain liability insurance Engineering fees should be based on
cost-plus-fixed-fee or lump-sum approaches
FINANCIAL BARRIERS PUBLIC GRANT AND LOAN PROGRAMS
Traditionally, EPA grants and loans for the construction of wastewater treatment facilities
are available only to public entities In such cases, if a community wishes to seek such funding,
the management agency for decentralized wastewater systems must be a public agency Private
entities such as private contractors, individual homeowners, and homeowners' associations would
not be eligible, except under certain provisions of the Clean Water Act that allow federal funds to
be used for specific non-point source pollution management programs Also, states have
typically given funding priority to larger communities with more costly wastewater needs over
smaller communities with lower-cost needs Thus smaller communities typically are the last
ones to receive wastewater funding assistance and often do not receive these types of funds In
addition, costs for planning purposes and for state review may be higher with alternative systems
25
-------
than for conventional systems As a result, financially strapped small communities are not able
or are reluctant to incur additional costs without financial assistance At the same time, most
small communities are not informed of how to pursue outside funding sources
Overcoming the Financial Bai riers There are other federal sources of funding for
public as well as private entities The US Department of Agriculture's Rural Utility Service
provides funding through the Water and Waste Disposal loan and grant program to public
entities, Indian tabes, and organizations operated on a not-for-profit basis, such as an
association, cooperative, or private corporation
Public grant and loan funds for wastewater management should be utilized to a greater
extent to manage decentralized wastewdter systems where eligible (i e , the Rural Utilities
Service's funding program, EPA's Hardship Grants program, the Clean Water SRF program for
nonpomt source control and the CWA section 319 program) Community officials should be
educated on the these eligibilities
26
-------
Chapter 5
EPAfS ABILITY AND PLANS TO IMPLEMENT
DECENTRALIZED TREATMENT SYSTEMS
BACKGROUND
Over the past 20 years, EPA has put considerable resources into helping small
communities meet their wastewater needs This has been accomplished m many ways -- public
education, technical assistance, technology transfer, research, demonstrations, and financing It
has been accomplished directly by EPA and state staff, and indirectly through federal funding of
the many associations that have come together to support small community needs Most of the
outreach, which includes technical assistance and education has been grouped under the umbrella
of EPA's Small Community Outreach and Education Program (SCORE) While EPA personnel
have provided some direct technical assistance to small communities, EPA has primarily
leveraged state outreach programs through grants and other assistance activities In addition,
assistance to other technical service providers foster activities such as development and
distribution of educational materials, telephone consultation, classroom training and field
assistance and training In recent years, EPA's outreach program has been expanded to include
special populations such as Native American Tribes and low income "colomas" along the U S -
Mexico border
This section responds to both areas raised by the House Appropriations Committee
concerning EPA's ability to implement the"alternatives within the current statutory and
regulatory structure, and EPA's plans for implementation using fiscal year 1997 funds
Described below are ongoing and planned activities and programs conducted by EPA or with
EPA assistance, which provide a framework for implementing alternatives such as decentralized
treatment systems
FUNDING
The Construction Grants Program required all but 4 or 5 states to set aside 4 percent of
their annual allotments for communities with populations of 3,500 or less to be used only for
alternatives to conventional sewage treatments works (Sec 205(h)) Many of these communities
have treatment facilities which serve as demonstrations of decentralized technology Last year,
EPA initiated a program to conduct assessments of many innovative technologies funded under
the Construction Grants program, and any other new technologies which have been put into use
more recently These assessments will continue over the next several years As the assessments
are completed, the information will be provided to our customers in various formats from
technical reports to fact sheets to pamphlets
27
-------
Although there is no specific sel aside for small communities or alternative systems in the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund program (SRF), decentralized technologies are eligible for
funding EPA staff are aware of decentralized systems funded by the SRF around the country
In Pennsylvania, local banks process SRF loans for homeowners which fund onsite systems
Minnesota has developed the Clean Water Partnership Program that has provided funds to
Brown, Nicollet and Cottonwood counties to re-loan to homeowners for conventional onsite
system replacements SRF funding has also provided assistance to the Osakis Lake Project to
replace failing systems around Osakis Lake The state of Washington provides SRF loans to
local loan funds These funds in turn provide loans to homeowners and small businesses for the
rehabilitation or reconstruction of onsite systems Ohio, Virginia and West Virginia are
developing similar programs
In an effort to expand the types of projects funded by the SRF, EPA issued the "Clean
Water State Revolving Fund Funding Framework" in October 1996 This document was
developed in conjunction with state SRI7 partners to clarify the eligible uses of SRF funds and
provide tools to establish relative priorities among water quality projects States are encouraged
to assess water quality problems on a watershed basis and develop integrated priority setting
processes With the expansion of the SRF to cover activities included in EPA approved nonpoint
source management plans, onsite treatment projects have a much greater potential for funding by
the SRF EPA plans to sponsor training workshops to further educate the nonpoint source
community about the SRF as a potential source of funding for nonpoint source projects
(including onsite systems) and facilitate coordination with the state SRF programs
Demonstration grants have also been issued to six states to develop integrated priority setting
systems that can be used as models by states
Recognizing that several federal agencies provide funds for wastewater collection and
treatment, EPA is participating in an effort with USDA's Rural Utility Service and HUD to
provide funding to communities in a more efficient and less burdensome manner Improved
coordination and cooperation between the Agencies will include
o Coordinating funding cycles and selection systems on a State-by-State basis,
o Promoting the use of a lead agency for jointly financed projects, where suitable, to
receive and review environmental review documents and ensure compliance with Federal
cross-cutting legislation, and
o Encouraging the use of a single application on a State-by-state basis to address similar
data requirements
A memorandum outlining this effort, to be signed by the three Agencies, is being prepared
Follow-up actions to implement these improvements will be undertaken in fiscal years 1997 and
1998
28
-------
Most recently, EPA issued guidelines for a new $50 million Hardship Grants Program for
Rural Communities To qualify for hardship assistance a grantee must be a rural community
with a population of 3,000 or fewer, lack centralized wastewater collection or treatment, have a
per capita income less than 80% of the national average, and have an unemployment rate of one
percent or more above the national rate This program is designed to be managed in conjunction
with the SRF program to make wastewater treatment more affordable to rural, economically
disadvantaged communities The Hardship Grant funds can be used to plan, design and construct
publicly-owned wastewater treatment works and/or provide training programs for sanitarians
related to the operation and maintenance of such systems Although no grants have yet been
made to communities, it is expected that many communities receiving hardship pants will have
failing septic tanks Decentralized systems may be viewed as the most economical treatment
option for dispersed, rural communities Examples of technical assistance that may be provided
to communities are over-the-shoulder training, educational seminars, and assistance with
development of local management districts States that take advantage of this program can make
strides toward eliminating the barriers identified earlier in this response Financial assistance
under this propam will be provided to qualifying communities during fiscal years 1997 and
1998
CWA Section 319 propam pants are also available to assist States in implementing
approved nonpomt source management propams Section 319 grants have been used to support
numerous projects that relate to decentralized system program implementation and technology
demonstrations Examples of projects that have been funded through Section 319 include
Demonstration of Alternative Onsite Systems, Maintenance of Onsite Constructed Wetlands,
Analysis of Onsite Sewage System Impacts on Groundwater Quality, Onsite Septic System
Demonstration and Training, Septic System Survey, Septic System Inventory and Inspection
Education Program, and Evaluation and Uppades of Onsite Systems
OUTREACH, TRAINING AND EDUCATION
In addition to the ongoing outreach efforts conducted by EPA staff, several significant
efforts, described below, are underway and will continue, which provide technical assistance to
small communities
Since 1979, EPA has funded the National Small Flows Clearinghouse, at West Virginia
University in Morgantown The Clearinghouse is the national repository and referral service for
the transfer of information on decentralized, onsite, alternative collection and small treatment
technologies and serves as a model for several other countries which are interested in
establishing similar programs The Clearinghouse services include (1) a toll-free technical
assistance hot line which answers over 3,000 assistance calls per month, (2) product distribution,
which involves filling over 1,000 orders monthly for 10,000 publications, articles, reports, and
videotapes, (3) publication of two newsletters and a professional journal reaching over 7,000
subscribers, (4) several national computer data bases on small community wastewater technology
29
-------
and regulations, and (5) a site on the World Wide Web The Clearinghouse has a wealth of
information available that can provide state and local regulators with the means to change laws
and make technical decisions Examples include (a) maintaining a database and summary of all
state regulations relating to onsite systems, (b) a recent survey of all health departments in the
nation, identifying such information as the number of households served by conventional onsite
systems, how many are failing, and wh.it local regulations apply, (c) establishing a database on
the testing of various onsite technology s conducted by six states in New England, and will also
facilitating communication among the states regarding the testing results The Clearinghouse
services are being used more and more each year
The Small Towns Environment Program (STEP) was funded several years ago through a
grant to Rensselaerville Institute as a grass-roots, self-help program STEP encourages the use of
small alternative wastewater systems and calls for citizens to perform many functions the
community would otherwise pay outsiders to do
EPA also funds an organization based at West Virginia University, the National
Environmental Training Center for Small Communities (NETCSC) This center supports
environmental trainers nationwide through development and delivery of training curricula and
training of trainers Services also include a toll-free telephone line, quarterly news letter, and a
training resource center with computer databases Several courses have been developed on
wastewater topics, including onsite and decentralized treatment Examples include "Assessing
Wastewater Options for Small Communities", "Basics of Environmental Systems Management",
"Onsite Wastewater System Operation ,and Maintenance", and "Operation of Sand Filters"
Some state organizations have already taken responsibility for onsite training Presently
at least six states have an organization with a center for training personnel associated with
installing and regulating onsite wastewdter systems (Arizona, Missouri, North Carolina, Rhode
Island, Texas and Washington) EPA recently awarded a grant to the NSFC for establishment of
a new onsite training center in Vermont
TECHNOLOGY AND DEMONSTRATIONS
EPA's technology and demonstration programs have fostered and collaborated with
others over the past 25 years to provide many of the technical guidance materials available today
Listed below is a summary of work thai is currently underway
o The National Onsite Demonstration Project is a three-phased, $3 5 million program to
demonstrate alternative onsite wastewater systems Funded by EPA through the NSFC,
this program includes construction and monitoring of demonstration facilities,
community education programs, technology transfer and building the capacity of states to
implement appropriate systems This project started in 1993 and is expected to be
30
-------
completed in the year 2000 Demonstration projects have been started in 12 communities in 10
states
o EPA is in the process of updating two of its design manuals "Design Manual for Onsite
Systems" and "Design Manual for Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment
Systems" The Design Manual for Onsite Wastewater Systems is currently under
development and is expected to be published in 1998 The manual on constructed
wetlands will be completed within the next year A manual on Small Community
Technologies was recently updated
o Several grants have been awarded, in the past two years, under the Environmental
Technology Initiative, to design and demonstrate onsite technologies These projects will
be getting underway this year and the results will be made available within a couple of
years, when demonstrations are completed
o A grant to develop a research agenda for the field of onsite wastewater treatment and to
begin some targeted research efforts is currently being prepared for award sometime later
this year This grant should help to coordinate research and uncover significant needs
that are currently being missed
o Within EPA, discussions are being held to establish a Small community wastewater
technology testing and verification program under the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) program ETV is a new program to verify the performance of
innovative technical solutions to problems that threaten human health or the environment
This would allow manufacturers of onsite system technologies to obtain independent
testing of then: technologies It would also allow state and local authorities to know that
the technologies will meet acceptable standards
o EPA's ground water program in cooperation with the wastewater program is currently
developing a guidance manual for large septic systems, a type of decentralized treatment
This guidance is also under final quality review at this time and will be published by the
end of the year
o Outside EPA, and without EPA funds several demonstrations of technologies are also
being conducted Five onsite demonstration projects are being initiated this year by the
Pennsylvania State Rural Electric Cooperative Association The State of North Carolina
has numerous demonstration activities focused on decentralized and onsite treatment
EPA will utilize these demonstrations in assessing new technologies Also the NSFC is
establishing a database which will serve as a repository of information on all projects
demonstrating onsite wastewater technology
31
-------
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
EPA plans to collaborate with oilier federal agencies to develop guidance to assist
communities to implement management systems One such guidance document has been
developed titled, "On-site Wastewater Management and Protection of Sensitive Receiving Water
Systems Planning for Opportunities " EPA also plans to promote the development of
decentralized management programs which are based on performance goals Under this effort,
EPA plans to provide analytical tools arid guidance to assist state and local governments in
revising and updating decentralized sysf em programs
The Office of Water has promoted the watershed concept over the past several years to
move toward the place-driven approach which will give holistic attention to ecosystems This
approach places the focus of watershed pollution abatement needs on the clean-up activities
which will allow watersheds to meet th« ir designated uses Some watershed analyses have
identified onsite systems as sources of pollution
EPA is collaborating with other federal5i state and local agencies as well as private
partners, to achieve the ultimate goal of a healthy ecosystem in these watersheds Many of the
tools needed to accomplish this work already exist, although additional tools will be developed
They will have to be applied by the state and local authorities to solve the pollution problems that
remain
Once completed, the Office of Water will transmit this response to EPA Regional offices,
State agencies, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and other stakeholders and
encourage them to take follow-up actions, as appropriate, to promote improved management and
operation of decentralized wastewater treatment systems
32
-------
REFERENCES
\
Abney, J 1976 Fountain Run, Kentucky (Case Study) Parrot, Ely, & Hurt March 1976
Anderson, D , R Siegnst, and R Otis 1985 Technology Assessment of Intermittent Sand
Filters EPA/832/R-85/100
Ayres & Associates, Inc 1991 Onsite Nitrogen Removal Systems Research/Demonstration
Project Phase I Report Prepared for the Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor and
Human Relations, Madison, WI
Arenovski, A and F Shephard 1996 A Massachusetts Guide to Needs Assessment and
Evaluation of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Alternatives Ad Hoc Task Force for
Decentralized Wastewater Management
Ball, H 1995 Nitrogen Reduction in an Onsite Trickling Filter/Upflow Filter System In
Proc 8th Northwest On-Site Wastewater Treatment Short Course and Equipment Exhibition
University of Washington, Seattle, WA, pp 259-268
Boyle, W 1995 Nitrogen Removal from Domestic Wastewater in Unsewered Areas In
Proc 8th Northwest On-Site Wastewater Treatment Short Course and Equipment Exhibition
University of Washington, Seattle, WA, pp 237-258
Cagle, W and Johnson, L 1994 On-Site Intermittent Sand Filter Systems, A
Regulatory/Scientific Approach to then* Study in Placer County, California In Proc 7th Nat
Symp on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, St Joseph, MI, pp 283-291
Ciotoli, P and K Wiswall 1982 Management of On-site and Small Community Wastewater
Systems Roy Weston, Inc , for U S EPA, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH
Gearheart, R A , Finney, B , and McKee, M 1994 Water and Wastewater Treatment
Technologies Appropriate for Reuse (WATTAR) Humboldt State University, Arcata
California, October 1994
Hines, J and R Favreau 1975 Recurculating Sand Filter An Alternative to Traditional
Sewage Absorption Systems In Proc Nat Home Sewage Disposal Symp , Chicago, IL
American Society of Agricultural Engineers
Hoover, M T and M A Renkow 1997 (In review) Technical Specifications for the COSMO
33
-------
onsite System Cost Estimation Tool College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, N C 27695
Jenssen, P and R Siegnst 1990 Technology Assessment of Waste-water Treatment by Soil
Infiltration Systems In Wat Sci Tec h, Vol 22 (3/4) 83-92
Laak, R 1986 The RUCK System In Proc Workshop on Appropriate Environmental
Engineering TEchnologies for Rural Areas Under Adverse Conditions, CWRS TEchmcal
University of Nova Scotia
Lewis, J 1986 EPA's Construction Grants Program A History In EPA Journal, Vol 12,
No 9, November
NSFC 1995 A Guide to State-Level Onsite Regulations NSFC-WWBKRG01 National
Small Flows Clearinghouse, Morgantown, WV
Otis, D 1996 Memorandum "Cluster System Costs", December 1996
Piluk, R and E Peters 1994 Small Recirculating Sand Filters for Individual Homes In
Proc 7th Nat Symp on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, St Joseph, MI, pp 310-318
Renkow, M and Hoover, M 1996 Costs of Onsite Management Options (COSMO) Model
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina
Shephard, F 1996 Managing Wastewater Prospects in Massachusetts for a Decentralized
Approach Ad hoc Task Force for Decentralized Wastewater Management
Smith, Robert 1978 Memorandum "Cost of Conventional Gravity Sewers and Centralized
Treatment in Small Communities", Robert Smith, Chief, Systems and Economic Analysis
Branch, U S EPA, June 21, 1978
Soltman, J 1989 Sand Filter Performance An Overview of Sand Filter Performance in
Washington and Oregon In Proc 6th Northwest On-Site Wastewater Treatment Short
Course and Equipment Exhibition, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, pp 271-287
Tchobanoglous, G and F Burton 1991 Wastewater Engineering Treatment, Disposal, and
Reuse Metcalf & Eddy, Inc McGraw-Hill, Inc
U S EPA n d A Survey of Alternative Collection Systems in EPA Region IV Region IV
Water Management Division, Technology Transfer Unit
34
-------
U S EPA 1991 Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems Manual EPA/625/1-91/024,
U S Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati,
Ohio ''
U S EPA 1993 1992 Needs Survey Report to Congress Office of Water, Washington,
DC EPA 832-R-93-002
U S GAO 1994 Water Pollution Information on the Use of Alternative Wastewater
Treatment Systems Report to the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight General
Accounting Office, Washington, DC
*
*
U S OMB (Office of Management and Budget) 1996 Economic Analysis of Federal
Regulations, Executive Order 12866, January 11, 1996
35
-------
-------
Appendix A
Definition of Terms and Descriptions of Wastewater Systems
-------
-------
DEFINITIONS
Activated Sludge A wastewater treatment process that uses suspended microorganisms to digest the
organic contents of wastewater (see "Suspended Growth Systems' in the Description of Wastewater
Systems" section below)
Alternative onsite system An onsit treatment system other than a conventional septic tank and leach field
design Alternative systems are used to accommodate a variety of site conditions (e g, high ground water,
low-permeability soil) and/or to provide additional treatment Examples of alternative systems include
alternative collection sewers, sand mounds, sand filters, anaerobic filters, disinfection systems, and cluster
systems, among others, as described in "Descriptions of Wastewater Systems"
Alternative Sewers Low-cost wastewater collection systems for small communities and/or areas with
difficult topography or high ground water or bedrock Alternative sewers are smaller in size than
conventional sewers and are installed at shallower depth, providing a more cost-effective method of
wastewater collection The three main classes of alternative sewers are pressure sewers, small diameter
gravity sewers, and vacuum sewers
Black Water Wastewater from the toilet, which contains most of the nitrogen in sewage
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) is the measure of the amount of oxygen required by bacteria
for stabilizing material that can be decomposed under aerobic conditions BOD is a commonly used
determinant of the organic strength of a waste
Centralized System A collection and treatment system containing collection sewers and a centralized
treatment facility Centralized systems are used to collect and treat large volumes of wastewater The
collection system typically requires large-diameter deep pipes, major excavation, and frequent manhole
access At the treatment facility, the wastewater is treated to standards required for discharge to a surface
water body The large amounts of biosolids (sludge) generated in treatment are treated and either land
applied, placed on a surface disposal site, or incinerated
Class V Well A shallow waste disposal well, stormwater and agriculture drainage system, or other device,
including a large domestic onsite wastewater system, that is used to release fluids above or into
underground sources of drinking water EPA permits these wells to inject wastes provided they meet
certain requirements and do not endanger underground sources of drinking water
Cluster System A decentralized wastewater collection and treatment system where two or more dwellings,
but less than an entire community, is served The wastewater from several homes often is pretreated onsite
by individual septic tanks before being transported through alternative sewers to an off-site nearby
treatment unit that is relatively simple to operate and maintain than centralized systems
Conventional Onsite System A conventional onsite system includes a septic tank and a leach field
Decentralized System An onsite or cluster wastewater system that is used to treat and dispose of relatively
small volumes of wastewater, generally from dwellings and businesses that are located relatively close
together Onsite and cluster systems are also commonly used in combination
Effluent Partially or fully treated wastewater flowing from a treatment unit or facility
Eutrophication A process by which nutrient-rich surface water or ground water contributes to stagnant,
oxygen-poor surface-water environments which may be detrimental to aquatic life
A-l
-------
Facultative Pond A lagoon that is sufficiently deep (i e, 5 to 6 feet) where organic solids settle to the
bottom as sludge and decay anaerobically, a liquid layer forms above the sludge where facultative and
aerobic bactena oxidize the incoming orgamcs and products of anaerobic sludge decomposition
Fecal Coliform Bacteria Common, harmless forms of bactena that are normal Constituents of human
intestines and found in human waste and in wastewater Fecal cohfonh bactena counts are used as an
indicator of presence of pathogenic microbes
Gray Water Non-toilet household wastewater (e g, from sinks, showers, etc ) '
Leaching Field See "Subsurface Soil Absorption Field"
Management of Decentralized Systems Hie centralized management and monitoring of onsite or cluster
wastewater systems, including, but not limited to, planning, construction, operation, maintenance, and
financing programs
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) A regulatory system that requires wastewater
treatment systems discharging into surface waters to obtain a permit from the EPA which specifies effluent
quality
Nonpoint Source Discharges Relatively diffuse contamination onginating from many small sources
whose locations may be poorly defined Onsite wastewater systems are one type of Nonpoint source
discharge
Onsite System A natural system or mechanical device used to collect, treat, and discharge or reclaim
wastewater from an individual dwelling without the use of community-wide sewers or a centralized
treatment facility A conventional onsite system includes a septic tank and a leach field Other alternative
types of onsite systems include at-grade systems, mound systems, sand filters and small aerobic units
These and other types of onsite systems are descnbed in the "Descnption of Wastewater Systems" section
Package Plant Prefabncated treatment units that can serve apartment buildings, condominiums, office
complexes, and up to a few hundred homes Package plants generally are used as cluster systems, but can
also be used in an onsite wastewater treatment train They are usually of the activated sludge or trickling
filter type, and require skilled maintenance programs
Point Source Discharges Contamination fi om discrete locations, such as a centralized wastewater
treatment facility or a factory
Pressure Sewers An alternative wastewater collection system in which household wastewater is pretreated
by a septic tank or grinder and pumped through small plastic sewer pipes buried at shallow depths to either
a conventional gravity sewer or a treatment system Pressure sewers are used in areas with high
groundwater or bedrock, low population density, or unfavorable terrain for gravity sewer collection They
require smaller pipes and less excavation than conventional sewers Two types of pressure sewers include
Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP) A submersible pump located either in a separate chamber
within a septic tank or in a pumping chambf r outside the tank pumps the settled liquid through the
collector main Because the wastewater is treated in a septic tank, the treatment facility may be smaller
and simpler than would otherwise be needed
A-2
-------
Grinder Pump Household wastes flow by gravity directly into a prefabricated chamber located
either in the basement of a house or outside the foundation wall The chamber contains a pumping unit
with grinder blades that shred the solids in the wastewater to a size that can pass through the small-
diameter pressure sewers
Pumping Stations A pumping facility is used to lift wastewater where topograpfiy is too flat or hilly to
permit natural gravity flow to treatment facility
Receiving Water Streams (i e, surface water bodies) into which treated wastewater is discharged
i _ *
Residuals The by-products of wastewater treatment processes, including sludge and septage
Secondary Treatment Typical effluent quality achieved by a conventional centralized treatment facility,
typically defined as 85% reduction of influent BOD and TSS or 30 mg/1 or both, which ever is least
Septage The solid and semi-solid material resulting from onsite wastewater pretreatment in a septic tank,
which must be pumped, hauled, treated, and disposed of properly
Sludge The primarily organic solid or semi-solid product of wastewater treatment processes The term
sewage sludge is generally used to describe residuals from centralized wastewater treatment, while the term
septage is used to descnbe the residuals from septic tanks
j
Small-Diameter Gravity Sewers An alternative wastewater collection system consisting of small-diameter
collection pipes (e g, between three and six inches) that transport liquid from a septic tank to a treatment
unit, utilizing differences in elevation between upstream connections and the downstream terminus to
achieve gravity flow
Subsurface Soil Absorption Field A subsurface land area with relatively permeable soil designed to
receive pretreated wastewater from a septic tank or intermediate treatment unit (e g, sand filter) The soil
further treats the wastewater by filtration, sorption, and microbiological degradation before the water is
discharged to ground water
Trickling Filter A fixed-film (see "Fixed Growth Systems" in "Description" section below) biological
wastewater treatment process used for aerobic treatment and nitrification
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) A measure of the amount of suspended solids found in wastewater effluent
Vacuum Sewers An alternative wastewater collection system that uses vacuum to convey household
wastewater from each connection to a vacuum station which includes a collection tank and vaccum pumps
Wastewater is then pumped to a treatment facility or conventional sewer interceptor
A-3
-------
Appendix A (continued)
DESCRIPTIONS OF WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
Anaerobic Filters Anaerobic filters are used as part of a treatment train designed to minimize nitrate
concentration in areas where discharge ot nitrates to surface water or ground water is a concern Anaerobic
filters convert nitrate (NO3) to gaseous forms of nitrogen (N2, N2O, HO) The key design consideration for
anaerobic filters is to ensure that the carbon-to-nitrogen ratio is sufficient for demtnfication Good
performance can be obtained by treating septic tank effluent with a nitrifying (usually sand) filter before
the anaerobic filter i
At-Grade Soil Absorption Systems At-grade soil
absorption systems are similar to the subsurface soil
absorption systems, but bedding material (usually gravel) is
placed at the ground surface rather than bi low ground and
is covered with soil fill material At-grads systems are used
in areas with relatively high ground-water tables or shallow
bedrock
At Grade
Cluster Systems Decentralized wastewater collection and
treatment systems serving two or more dwellings, but less
than an entire community Sometimes, th« wastewater
from several homes is pretreated onsite by individual septic
tanks before being transported through altt rnative sewers to
an off-site, nearby treatment unit that is relatively small
compared to centralized systems
Septic Tar*
Septc Tank
Pump
Constructed Wetlands Constructed wetlands are
engineered systems designed to optimize the physical,
chemical, and biological processes of natuial wetlands for
reducing BOD and TSS concentrations in wastewater
Wastewater from a septic tank flows through a pipe into the
wetland, where the wastewater is evenly distributed across
the wetland inlet Sedimentation of solids with the media
substrate occurs Constructed wetlands are reliable for
BOD and TSS removal, and may contribute to nutrient
removal when used after a nitrifying unit pi ocess
Vegetation
(Optional)
From
Home
A-4
-------
Disinfection Systems Disinfection refers to the destruction of disease-causing organisms called pathogens
(e g, bacteria, viruses) by the application of chemical or physical agents Disinfection may be necessary
where other types of treatment are inadequate to reduce pathogen levels to the required regulatory
standards for surface discharge The most common types of disinfection for decentralized systems are
Chlormation Systems Chlonnation occurs by mixing/diffusing liquid or solid chlorine forms with
wastewater Chlorination is considered to be the most practical disinfection method for onsite wastewater
treatment because it is reliable, inexpensive, and easy to use, however, dechlonnation may be needed to
prevent the dispersal of residuals that may be harmful to aquatic Irfe
Ultraviolet Disinfection In an ultraviolet treatment system, high intensity lamps are submerged in
wastewater or the lamps surround tubes that carry wastewater Disinfection occurs when the ultraviolet
light damages the genetic material of the bacterial or viral cell walls so that replication can no longer occur
Care must be taken to keep the surface of the lamps clean because surface deposits can shield the bacteria
from the radiation, thus reducing the performance of the system Ultraviolet radiation is a highly effective
technique especially attractive in cluster systems where the effluent cannot include any residuals or where
there are overriding concerns with safety
Effluent Distribution Systems Effluent distribution systems are essential components of subsurface
wastewater treatment systems These systems deliver wastewater to soil infiltrative surfaces either by
gravity or by pressure distribution
Pressure distribution Pressure dosing systems distribute water over more infiltrative surface and
provide a resting period between doses that increases the life and performance of the leach field Dosing
siphons or pumps provide the pressure, the latter requires additional maintenance demands
Fixed Growth Systems In fixed growth systems, aerobic microorganisms attach and grow on an inert
media Wastewater flows across a slime layer created by the attached microorganisms, which extract
soluble organic matter from the wastewater as a source of carbon and energy
Visible
Alarm
Holding Tank A large storage tank for
wastewater or septage An alarm on the tank
signals when the tank is fell and the contents need
to be pumped and properly disposed
Watertight TanK
A-5
-------
Intermittent Sand Filters (ISF) An intermittent
sand filter consists of sand media with a relatively
uniform particle-size distribution above a gravel
layer An ISF reduces BOD and TSS
concentrations to 10 mg/L or less Wastewater
passes through the filter and drains from flie gravel
to the collector Uniform distribution of influent is
very important to filter performance Influent is
dosed to the surface 4 to 24 tunes per day, with
best performance from higher numbers of smaller
doeses The sand filter material may be left
exposed or covered with removable covers A
septic tank (or other pretreatment system) is
required to remove settleable solids and grease,
which can clog the sand Covers are used in cold
climates If sand filter material is left exposed, it
must be checked regularly for litter, vegetation
growing on the surface It may require raking
perodically An uncovered system also is
susceptible to potential odor problems Less
frequently, the sand may require removal and
replacement of the top layer
Removal Systems Several types of treatment processes are capable of removing **"&»".
Nitrogen removal systems are used in onsite treatment trains to ensure protection of ground
as coastal waters recharged by ground water Biological nitrogen removal icqmm aerobic
s to first nitrify the wastewater, then anaerobic conditions to denitrify nitrate-nitrogen to nitrogen
The successful removal of nitrogen from wastewater requires that environments conducive to
on aS demmflcation be induced and positioned properly Three types of nitrogen removal
systems are described below
Water and Gray Water Black water (toilet water) can be segregated from
to a septic tank/soil absorption system
to biological demtnflcation
RectrculatrngSandFrtters Recirc ulating sand filters also can provide consistent nitrogen
removal (See "Recirculating Sand Filter" below)
A-6
-------
Non-Sand Filters Non-sand filters
function similarly to sand filters but use
materials other than sand as the filter
medium, including natural media such as
peat and bottom ash, and synthetic media
such as expanded polyurethane foam and
honeycombed plastic to reduce levels of
TSS, BOD, and fecal cohforms Most non-
sand filter media are packaged in units or
placed in enclosures and use pressure dosing
to distribute the effluent in the filter
Peat Filter
Recirculatmg Sand Filters (RSF)
A recirculating sand filter uses relatively
coarse sand or gravel media for filtration of
wastewater The wastewater is dosed from a
recirculating tank, which receives septic
tank effluent and returned filtrate A portion
of the filtrate is diverted for disposal during
each dose RSFs are suitable in areas too
small for conventional soil absorption
systems or with shallow depths to
groundwater or bedrock RSFs can be used
for reducing TSS, BOD, fecal cohform, and
nitrogen RSFs are reliable, requiring little
maintenance in comparison to activated
sludge systems
Pffttff ttfflCSI
Unit
To
Hotl Valve
' 1
. 1
i
X
I
111=^ .11=
Media
f*s* * £/> / jg.-«." 4
Free Access
Sand Filter
RccucuiuioD
Effluent
Pump
Sand Mounds Sand mounds are used when
soil depth is too shallow for a conventional
septic tank and leach field system The sand
mound filters septic tank effluent before it
reaches the natural soil Sand fill is placed
above the ground surface, and a pipe
distribution system and pressure dosing is
used to distribute the effluent A septic tank
or other pretreatment is required to remove
settleable solids and grease
Vegetation
Pressure Distribution Top(Soi! I Absorption Held
Cross-Section
Diagram
Rocky or Tight Sod or High Qrouncfwater
A-7
-------
Septic Tank A buried tank designed and
constructed to receive and pretreat wastewater from
individual homes by separating settleable and
floatable solids from the wsteater Grease and other
light materials, collectively called scum, float to the
top Gases are normally vented through the
building's sewer pipe An outlet blocked off from
the scum layer feeds effluent to a subsurface soil
absorption area or an intermediate treatmt nt unit
Subsurface Soil Absorption Systems A typical soil
absorption system consists of perforated piping and
gravel in a field or trench, although gravel less systems
can also be used Soil absorption systems are normally
placed at relatively shallow depths (e g, <2 ft)
Excellent TSS, BOD, phosphorus, and pathogen
removal is provided in the unsaturated soil which
surrounds me infiltrative surfaces If properly sited,
designed, constructed, and maintained, subsurface soil
absorption systems are very reliable and c
-------
Appendix B
The Wastewater Planning Process
-------
-------
Appendix B Tbe Wastewater Planning Process
The wastewater planning process involves coordinating a variety of technical and
institutional factors, including engineering, environmental, legislative, public education,
socaoeconomic, and administrative considerations, as shown in Figure B1 The goal of the
wastewater planning process is to develop a comprehensive plan to guide the community m the
selection, siting, construction, operation, maintenance, and financing of wastewater systems that
address the wastewater needs of the community A key part of the planning process is a
systematic evaluation of the financial and regulatory feasibility of all practical centralized and
decentralized engineering alternatives The steps in a wastewater planning process typically
include (Arenovski and Shephard, 1996)
Needs assessmentestablishing an overall community profile, including current
and future needs and issues, and identifying areas of concern where easting
wastewater facilities are inadequate or problems might occur in the future
Development and screening of alternativesexamining which technology, or
combination of technologies, will best address the concerns the community faces
The alternatives to consider include expanding or upgrading existing systems or
improving their operation and maintenance, as well as installing new systems
Evaluation of community-wide planscomparing the feasibility and cost-
effectiveness of a small number of viable plans, and comparing each to a "baseline
alternative" of maximizing the use of existing facilities
In many communities, results of wastewater planning efforts will indicate that the best
option is choosing several alternativesthat is, decentralized onsite wastewater systems in one
part of the community, decentralized cluster systems in other sections, and a centralized facility
in another part of town This type of integrated approach reinforces land use planning; it also
emphasizes the need for adequate management of decentralized systems, and for centralized and
decentralized systems to be managed together by a central oversight agency (Shephard, 1996)
Comprehensive Planning
Wastewater system options are best selected in conjunction with broader, comprehensive
community planning efforts to ensure that overall community goals are being met, such as
environmental protection and land use goals The planning process includes an analysis of the
physical, social, economic, cultural, and environmental characteristics of the planning area. For
example, if a watershed protection program already exists in a region to protect sensitive
environmental areas, more advanced wastewater treatment (e g, disinfection or nutrient removal)
might be included as part of the watershed program, whether as part of a centralized or
decentralized wastewater system (note that a decentralized system would allow the flexibility of
installing advanced treatment only for those dwellings in close proximity to the sensitive areas)
Similarly, if local land-use planning efforts include maintaining open space and
conservation/woodland areas, wastewater management choices can complement such efforts (e g,
by encouraging cluster developments serviced by cluster wastewater systems)
Bl
-------
w
Environmental Concerns
Physical Conditions
Climatic Conditions
Water Quality
Adequacy of Treatment
Legislative Concerns
«Adequacy o[ Existing
Institutional Arrangements
* Legal Requirements
(Federal/Slate)
Relationships Among
Affected Agencies
Planning/Enforcement/
Operating Capabilities
Engineering Concerns
Suitable Design
* Appropriate Technology
* Operating Condition
Performance'F*8||abi'l'y
Residuals Volume/
Characteristics
Maintenance Requirements
Improvements/Repairs
Surveillance Needs
Ownership Status
Operational Procedures
Regulatory Provisions
Financial Planning
Economic Concerns
Fiscal Equity
Ability lo Pay
Ability to Generate Necessary
Revenue
Grant/Loan Availability
Accountability
Borrowing Capacity
Future Growlh Potential
Administrative Concarns
Record keeping Practices
Decision making Process
Staffing Capability
Regulatory Requirements
Formal and Informal
Interagency Relationships
Social Concerns
Willingness to Assume
Responsibility
Public Support
Educational Program
Figure B -1. Technical and institutional factors in decentralized wastewater systems management planning
-------
Appendix C
Types of Management Structures for Decentralized Wastewater Systems
-------
-------
Appendix C Types of Management Structures for Decentralized Wastewater Systems
Table G-l Management Structures
Management
Entity
Description
Service Area
Governing Body
Responsibilities
State Agency
Environmental
protection
agencies, health
departments, and
sublic utilities
Program
enforcement can
be handled on a
regional basts
State legislature
Agencies report to
the governor,
legislature, or to a
board of directors
Code enforcement
ofwastewater
design, install-
ation, and
operation
standards, and
technical and
financial
assistance
County
Vlost basic political
subdivision in a
state Compnsedof
incorp munic and
unmcorp areas
Provides service
throughout its juris
and to defined areas
via improvement
districts
Includes elected
(pnnc legislative
branch) county
board corn-mission,
council-
administrator,
council-elected
executive
Coordinates munic
in its juns , provides
special services on
contract basis,
serves as a fiscal
agent for other local
units of
government
Municipality
Cities, towns,
villages, and
townships
Provides service
throughout its
|uns and to
defined areas
via improve-
ment districts
Mayor-council,
commission,
and council-
manager
Provides a wide
range of
services
Special District
Performs funct-
ions prescribed by
state-enabling
legislation
Provides single or
multiple services
Flexible
Board of directors
(elected,
appointed, or
existing agency
members)
All wastewater
management
functions, similar
to local
government State
defines function
and scope
Improvement
District
Device used by
counties/ munic to
provide services to
local gov
jurisdictions
One or more as
part of a single
jurisdiction
Governing body of
the creating unit of
government
State statutes
define extent of
authority Usually
applied to finance
public service
improvements
Public Authority
Authorized to
administer a revenue-
producing public
enterprise Similar to
a special district
Flexible
Board of directors
(elected or members
of local government)
Used primarily for
financing capabilities
Public
Nonprofit Corp
Provides water or
wastewater
services on
behalf oflocal
governments
Flexible (single
community,
group of
communities, or
statewide)
Usually
municipal or state
officials
Serves as
financing
mechanism Can
provide technical
assistance to
small
communities
Private
Nonprofit Corp
Established by
the users of a
facility to assist in
facility financing
and operation
Can include
subdivisions,
small
communities, and
rural areas
Board of
directors elected
by stockholders
or a property
owners
association
Provides
financing and
operational
functions
Private For
Profit Corp.
Can design,
operate, or
maintain
sewerage
"acihties
Flexible (single
homeowner to
small
community)
Private utility
has stock-
holders or
investors
Public utility
commission
(PUC)has
jurisdiction
Active and
flexible role to
play m
managing small
wastewater
systems
n
i
-------
Table C4 (continued)
Management
Entity
financing
Capabilities
Advantages
Disadvantages
State Agency
"rovidcs financial
support through
federal grants and
state revenues
Regulatory and
inancial
advantages over
oeal government
State cnforcc-mcnt
can insulate from
local political
pressure Can
administer
trainmg/cert
programs
Program
organizations
differ (Difficult to
implement
methods from one
state in another
Can become
distanced from
local governments
County
Charges for
sewerage sources
and finance
construction
hrough taxation,
;cneral funds,
special assess-
ments, bonds, and
scrmit fees
Can interact with
states and local
governments on
many issues Often
seen as
administrative arms
of the state
Provide efficient
resource base for
providing public
services
Sometimes not
willing to provide
specialized public
services to a defined
service area
Community debt
limits could be
restrictive
Municipality
{as a broad
range of fiscal
towers (similar
o counties)
Can better react
to local
jcrccption and
attitude
Might lack
admin capa-
bilities, staff, or
willingness to
design, install,
operate, and/or
regulate a
facility
Financial
capabilities
might be
limited
Special District
.ocal taxation,
service charges,
special assess-
ments, grants,
oans, bonds, and
>ermit fees
iHexiblc Renders
equitable services
[only those
receiving services
pay for them)
Simple,
independent forms
of government
Can promote
proliferation of
local govern ment
and duplication
and fragmentation
of public services
Fiscal problem
could result from
overuse
improvement
District
Can apply special
>roperty
assessments, user
charges, other
ices Can sell
xmds
9
Can extend public
services without
major
expenditures
People in the
benefittcd area
usually favor the
improvement
Contributes to
fragmentation of
local government
services Can
result in
administrative
delays
Public Authority
Can use revenue
xmds, user charges,
and connection fees
Good when local
governments are not
able to provide public
service because of
financial,
administrative, or
political problems
Has a certain degree
of autonomy
Financing ability is
limited to revenue
bonds Thus, local
government must
support the debt
incurred by the
public authority
Public
Nonprofit Corp
Jser charges and
services fees and
sales of stocks
and tax-exempt
xmds Can
accept some
federal grants
and loans
Offers flexibility
>n e§t*|hlt§hffi0
management
facilities and
financing
facilities by state
and local
governments
Financing
method doe not
affect local debt
limitations
Local
governments
might be
reluctant to apply
this concept
Private
Nonprofit Corp.
ihgible for
federal grants
and loans
Provides public
Services «/hs*S
local govern-
ments are
unwilling or
unable
Services could be
of poor quality or
could be
terminated.
Private For
Profit Corp.
Jser charges ,
ThePUCcan
nfluence the
service rates
charged
7rees the local
1 IKI ft a*w*f***
rom providing
hcse services
Competition
between firms
will help
maintain quality
while keeping
costs down
Threat that the
company could
go out of
business
Private
corporations are
usually not
qualified for
federal and state
grant and loan
programs
n
Source Ciotoh and Wiswall, 1982
-------
Appendix C (cont)
In addition to the types of management structures described above, two additional approaches to
managing decentralized wastcwater systems include pnblic/pnvate partnerships and management districts, as
describe below
Pubhc/Pnvate Partnerships It is sometimes difficult to determine which parties are responsible for
the various decentralized system management functions because of the split responsibility between the public
and private sector Several options exist for public/private partnerships in the management of decentralized
systems Systems can be privately owned and managed under a permit system, privately owned and publicly
managed, or pubhcly owned and managed. In the first option, the resident must comply with the regulations
and pays all costs for maintenance, pumping, and if necessary, rehabilitation In the second option, the
resident pays user charges to the local district which performs the necessary maintenance (this does not cover
rehabilitation) The final option involves the pubhc organization providing wastewater services for all
households and collecting user charges to pay for the service, all construction, operation, and maintenance
tasks are performed by the pubhc agency, or firms under contract to it
Wastewater Management District. When a government agency or pubhc authority is unable or
unwilling to assume the life-cycle management of decentralized wastewater systems, a special management
entity, such as a management district, can be formed where state statutes permit This management option
involves incorporating decentralized systems into a local or regional wastewater management district, with
district personnel responsible for system operation and maintenance Decentralized wastewater management
districts have been in existence since 1972, when Georgetown, California implemented a community-wide
onsite wastewater system management program in the Lake Auburn Trails subdivision (Shephard, 1996)
Table C-2 summarizes a number of decentralized wastewater management programs that have been
implemented as management districts throughout the country For a further discussion of management
systems for decentralized wastewater treatment systems, see Shephard (1996)
r-i
-------
Table C-2 Management Districts: Summary of Case Study Characteristics
Case Study
Funding Source
Size of Area
Waterbody
Protected
Program Components
Crystal Lakes, CO
Annual dues ($60 per lot, $100 per lot if served
by central water and sewer, £ 180 per lot if
connected to seasonal central water and sewer)
4,000 tots
Crystal Lakes
Developer establishes and manages decentralized water and wastewater
facilities in the subdivision Management is funded through annual dues and
includes, maintenance, removal of sewage from vaults, and delivery of
drinking water to cisterns
Crystal Lake, MI
Not Reported
1,100 homes
Crystal Lake
Establishment of new ordinances
(1) inspection/upgrade required pnor to sale, (2) homeowners required to
report on all systems, (3) health department required to inspect the systems,
(4) systems must be upgraded within 120 days of inspection if failed, and
(S) non-compliance meets with tough consequences
o
Georgetown Divide, CA
Annual dues ($12 75 to $22 75), destp costs
($540 per system), and hook up fees ($875 per
system)
3,000 acres
American River
Management entity is responsible for operations and maintenance, repair
and ""spectio", s>s*s~* dss g", centre! of installation and smug, and coniroi
of building process Inspection and maintenance program is database-
controlled
KuekaLake,NY
$300 per year per parcel fee
Not Reported
Kueka Lake
Management entity responsible for evaluating, monitoring, and setting
standards Ordinances established include (1) the town had ultimate
authority, (2) a mix of system designs was allowed, (3) annual inspection
were required for highly technical systems, (4) systems within 200 feet of
the lake must be inspected every 5 years, (6) systems must be inspected
pnor to property transfer, and (7) enforcement powers
Stmson Beach, CA
Funds obtained from tax revenues, semiannual
fee of $53, and charges for special inspections
and inspection for compliance
700onsite
systems
Oroundwater/
Coastal waters
The District's management activities include inspection of system
installation and routine system operation, and water quality monitoring The
district's rules and regulations specify the criteria to be used when issuing
permits for new onsite systems, as well as for the repair and/or replacement
of existing systems Most of the systems in the community are inspected at
least once a year, the systems that have been corrected or replaced, however,
are inspected two or three times a year District has a broad range of
regulatory authority to perform onsue management functions
-------
Table C*-2(contmued)
"ase Study
Funding Source
Size of Area
Waterbody
Protected
Program Components
Ouysborough, Nova Scotia
Initial Funds £2.500 fee per equiv unit or
700 residents
property, funds from Capital Assist e Program
[50% of total), and funds from the Council of the
Municipality of Quysborough (26% of total)
Funds for Management Program Connection fee
Ouysborough harbor
of $3,500 Annual property tax equal to the
expected annual maintenance fee plus an amount
to be set aside for future capital
Built a Rotating Biological Contactor type sewage treatment facility to
service the mam core of the community Second, a portion of the District
was connected by sewer lines to an aerated lagoon system The remaining
properties within the District have been serviced by individual on site
systems The municipality hired one employee to be responsible for the
general maintenance of the treatment plant and lagoon systems A
preventative maintenance was established for the onsite systems
Cass County, MN
$3,800 per resident initial cost; annual fee of $12
to $15
110 miles, 85
towns
numerous lakes,
streams
o
U1
In 1994, the county developed an "Environmental Subordinate Service
District," whereby a township, as the local unit of government, can
effectively provide, finance, and administrate government services for
subsets of its residents Establishment of such districts within a town is
authorized under MN Statute 365A The purpose of these districts is to
provide a self sufficient, effective, and consistent long term management
tool, chiefly for neighborhood alternative (STEP) collection and communal
leach fields This innovative model stays at the grass roots level where the
affected property owners and township are involved Cass County provides
technical and support assistance when required, but is not directly involved
The partnering with the townships and the county has allowed resource
sharing, improved communication, and thus has opened up prospects for
other cooperative ventures such as land-use planning, road improvements,
and GIS use
Once a Subordinate Service District is created by petition and vote from the
residents needing the specific service, a County/Township agreement is
signed The County then determines the system's design, handles
construction oversight, gives final approval for the collection system,
commits to yearly inspections, and assures regulatory compliance The
leach fields are located away from lakes, wells, and groundwater supplies
Cass County will allow systems to he on county administered land in order
to defray residents' costs, or to enable optimal siting (Shephard, 1995)
-------
-------
Appendix D
Cost Estimation Methodology
-------
-------
COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
The cost estimation methodologies for conventional gravity and alternative collection systems,
as well as centralized treatment, cluster treatment, and onsite treatment systems, are presented in this
appendix The cost estimates include the capital cost necessary to install the system(s) and the annual
cost to repair and maintain the system(s) Capital costs are annuahzed over 30 years (the life of the
system) using a discount rate of 7 percent (OMB, 1996) All costs are presented in 1995 dollars Cost
data for the different technologies have been obtained from various sources, as documented in each
section Because the data reflect costs from different years, they have been indexed to 1995 dollars
using the Means Historical Cost Indexes, as printed in the "Engineering News-Record (ENR)"(Means
Heavy Construction Cost Data, 1996) Costs are indexed using the following equation
1995 Cost = 1987 Cost x
1995 Index
1987 Index
Indexes applicable to the costs presented in this appendix are
Table D-l. Cost Indexes
Year
1976
1978
1987
1991
1992
1995
Index
469
535
877
968
994
1076
COLLECTION SYSTEMS
Conventional Gravity Collection
A conventional gravity collection sewer collects and transports sewage to a centralized
treatment facility via gravity The system includes lateral pipes, collection sewers, interceptor sewers,
manholes, and pump stations Laterals are the pipes that transport wastewater from homes to the
collection main sewers Collection sewers are the pipes which carry the wastewater to interceptor
sewers, which carry wastewater to the treatment system with the help of pump stations if needed
Manholes are included along the collection sewer to allow access for cleaning
D-l
-------
Because the pipes in a gravity collection system must continually slope downward, pump
stations may be required to avoid excessive excavation for pipes or to reach a particular elevation at the
system outfall Pump stations (or lift stations) include pumps, valves, and a well to hold incoming
sewage
Cost Data
Cost estimates were developed for a conventional gravity collection system using cost equations
developed by Dames and Moore These equations were derived from actual installation and annual
operating and maintenance (O&M) costs (Smith, 1978) The cost estimating procedure calculates costs
in 1978 dollars because these were the best data available, the costs were then indexed to 1995 dollars
Pipe Diameter - Dames and Moore provide an equation for estimating the capital costs of the
lateral, collection mam, and interceptor sewer pipes on a dollar per foot basis This equation relates
the cost of the pipe to the diameter of pipe required
$ (1978 dollars) = 3 2 x (pipe diameter)11667 x 1 03
foot
Dames and Moore also provide an equation to determine the diameter of pipe required'for the
collection and interceptor sewer, based on the flow of wastewater through the pipe
0 3756
Pipe diameter = 17 74 x Flow (mgd)
A minimum pipe diameter of 8 niches was used for the collection and interceptor sewers (Fact Sheet,
n d ), unless a larger pipe size was required for the design flow A pipe diameter of 4 inches was used
for on-lot lateral pipes
Pipe Length - The length of collection sewer required is dependent on the population density
Dames and Moore provide an equation for estimating this length
feet of sewer _ persons ~06S
capita acre
The length of interceptor pipe needed to transport the wastewater to a newly constructed treatment
facility in the rural community is estimated to be about one mile The length of inteiceptor pipe for the
fringe community needed to transport wastewater to an existing facility in the metropolitan center was
estimated between one and five miles On-lot lateral pipes are estimated to be about 50 feet per home
in the rural community, and 25 feet per home in the fringe community
D-2
-------
Lift/Pump Stations - The number of pump stations required in a system is dependent on the
site topography Dames and Moore estimate the number of pump stations to be one for every 18,000
feet of collection and interceptor length, however, additional pump stations are necessary if the
topography is hilly or steep The cost to install pump stations is dependent on the flow of wastewater
and is estimated by the following equation
Cost per station (1978 $) = 0 168 x (flow, mgd)*os x I 03
A minimum cost of $50,000 (1995$) was used for construction of pump stations
Annual costs to repair and maintain gravity collection sewers were also estimated from Dames
and Moore data, average operating and maintenance costs for sewers is $1,502 per mile of sewer line
(1978 dollars)
System Design and Cost
The following conventional gravity collection systems were designed and costed for the fringe
and rural communities using the methodology presented above
1) Installation of a conventional gravity sewer in the fringe community, with an additional
1-5 miles of pipe to connect this system to the existing sewer system in the metropolitan
center
2) Installation of a conventional gravity sewer in the rural community to be connected to a
new rural community treatment plant located within one mile of the community
Frmge Community Costs (1995 $)
The collection system for the fringe community is estimated to require about 25,000 feet of 10-
inch diameter collection pipe, between 5,280 and 26,400 feet of 10-inch interceptor pipe, 11,000 feet
of 4-inch lateral pipe, and three pump stations The capital cost to install this system ranges from
$3,322,900 to $5,377,800, depending on the distance of interceptor pipe required The annual O&M
costs are estimated to range between $23,000 and $35,000
Rural Community Costs (1995 $)
Population density has a significant impact on the cost of collection, and ultimately makes up a
large percentage of the cost to connect an area to centralized treatment For this reason the cost of
collection for the rural community was calculated using two population densities a moderate density of
1 home per 1 5 acres and a low density of 1 home per 5 acres
D-3
-------
The collection system for the rural area when the population density is moderate is estimated to
require about 15,500 feet of 8-inch diameter collection pipe, 5,280 feet of 8-inch diameter interceptor
pipe, 6,800 feet of 4-inch diameter lateral pipe, and two pump stations The capital cost to install this
system is estimated to be $1,882,800 and the annual O&M costs are estimated to be about $15,750
The collection system for the rural area when the population density is low is estimated to
require about 34,000 feet of 8-inch diameter collection pipe, 5,280 feet of 8-ineh diameter interceptor
pipe, 6,800 feet of 4-inch lateral pipe, and three pump stations The capital cost to install this system is
estimated at $3,311,500 and the estimated annual O&M costs are about $26,300 '
Alternative SDGS Collection
Alternative collection sewers are used in place of, or in conjunction with, conventional gravity
collection sewers to collect and transport wastewater to a central treatment facility Small diameter
gravity sewers (SDGS) are a system of interceptor pipes and tanks and small diameter PVC collection
mains Onsite tanks are used to remove grease and settleable solids, allowing for the smaller diameter
collection pipe to be used The settled wastewater is discharged from the septic tank via gravity into
the collector mams (EPA, 1991) The collector mains then transport the wastewater to a local cluster
system, a centralized treatment facility, or a conventional collection system The main components of
an SDGS are 3-mch to 8-ineh PVC mains, cleanouts or manholes, vents, and septic tanks
Cost Data
Several sources were reviewed to obtain cost data on SDGS systems These sources include
EPA Manual on Alternative Collection (EPA, 1991)
Fountain Run Case Study (Abney, 1976)
" Region IV Survey (EPA, ri d )
The EPA alternative coEection manual provides unit cost data (mid-1991) for interceptor tanks
and 4-inch mams The manual also contains design data and SDGS systems for several small
communities, these communities were located in areas with steep and hilly topography These systems
were also designed to feed into central treatment facilities, instead of local cluster treatment systems
These differences are the reason why the sewer designs for these communities were not applied to the
hypothetical communities
The Fountain Run case study provides design information for a community divided into clusters
ranging from 3 homes to 34 homes The study did not indicate any prevailing topographic conditions
which would hinder the construction of a SDGS The study also provided unit cost data (1976) for the
SDGS components, but these were not used since more recent unit cost information is available from
the EPA alternative collection manual
D-4
-------
The Region IV survey contains design and project cost information on alternative collection
systems The SDGS projects were all designed to feed into centralized treatment facilities, therefore,
these projects are not applied to the hypothetical communities
System Design and Cost
The SDGS system was chosen to collect and transport wastewater to a local cluster treatment
system The homes in the fringe and rural communities were divided into smaller groupings, or
clusters, based on their proximity to each other Homes located in areas with poorly drained soils or
high water table were also clustered together
Design information for cluster systems of 3 to 34 homes was obtained from the Fountain Run
Case Study This information was combined with unit costs obtained from the EPA alternative
collection manual Homes with existing onsite septic tanks in good working order were not costed for
replacement Cost estimates for the installation of SDGS in the fringe and rural areas are provided
below
Fringe Community
The fringe area was grouped into 20 clusters Table D-2 presents a summary of the capital cost
and the length of sewer required for each cluster As an example, the calculation of the capital costs
for the 34-home SDGS cluster iS presented below
Table D-2 Fringe Area Clusters
Number of
Clusters
1
6
3
10
Total
Number of
Connections
7
10
12
34
383
Capital Cost
per
Connection
$2,633
$2,271
$1,723
$2,372
$827,631
Feet of Sewer
per
Connection
174
147
83
148
63,440
Septic Tank Capital Cost This cluster contains 34 tanks The EPA manual estimates the
average installed septic tank cost to be $800 (1991 dollars) This yields a capital cost of $27,200 in
1991 dollars or $30,235 in 1995 dollars for the septic tanks in this cluster
D-5
-------
Sewer Mam Capital Cost The 34-home cluster requires 5,040 feet pf 4-ineh main The EPA
alternative collection manual estimates the cost per foot to install 4-inchpipe to be $9 per foot (1991)
This yields a capital cost of $45,360 in 1991 dollars or $50,421 in 1995 dollars for the collection main
in this cluster
Total Capital Cost for Collection The capital cost for collection is the sum of the capital cost
for the units in the system incremented to 1995 dollars For the 34-home cluster system the capital cost
is $80,818, or a cost of $2,372 per home Two hundred twenty homes in the fringe community have
existing tanks which will be utilized by these cluster systems, therefore, the cost to replace these tanks
($195,636) has been subtracted from the total collection cost The capital cost for collection in the
fringe area is $827,631, as shown in Table D-2
Operation and Maintenance Costs The operation and maintenance cost for the SDGS system
is included in the description of treatment for cluster systems, described later in this appendix
Rural Community
For estimating the cost of cluster systems, the failing systems in the rural community were
grouped into 4 clusters Table D-3 presents a summary of the capital cost and the length of sewer
required for each cluster The capital cost of the SDGS clusters in the rural area were calculated using
the same process as the fringe area
Table D-3 Rural Area Clusters
Number of
Clusters
2
1
1
Total
Number of
; Connections
10
12
35
67
Capital Cost per
Connection1
$2,271
$1,723
$2,372
$149,122
Feet of Sewer
per Connection
147
83
148
9,116
Capital Cost The capital cost for collection in the rural area is $149,122, as shown in
Table D-3
Operation and Maintenance The operation and maintenance cost for the SDGS system is
included in the treatment part of the clustei system
D-6
-------
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Centralized Wastewater Treatment
Many treatment technology options are available to communities that wish to employ
centralized wastewater treatment Community-specific characteristics, such as land cost and
availability, wastewater characteristics and flow rates, desired treated wastewater effluent
concentration, and solids disposal costs affect whether a particular treatment train may be the most
cost-effective and reliable system for a particular community For the hypothetical fringe and rural
communities, different treatment trains are costed based on their expected community characteristics
For the rural community, due to the very small wastewater flow and the relatively large amount of land
available, the treatment tram costed includes a facultative oxidation pond, which requires a large
amount of land but is economical and requires relatively little maintenance, and a
chlorination/dechlormation disinfection unit For the fringe community, the treatment train consists of
a grit chamber, comminutor, sequencing batch reactor (SBR), and chlorination/dechlonnation
disinfection unit The SBR was selected for the fringe community because it is capable of handling
small wastewater flows and requires only a small amount of land, which may not be readily available in
a fringe area If removal of additional nitrogen is required, the facultative oxidation pond in the rural
community is replaced by a SBR that provides nitrification and demtrification, and the SBR in the
fringe community is modified to provide such treatment Waste solids from the SBR umt is costed for
disposal of via land application
Cost Data
The costs for treatment of wastewater at centralized wastewater treatment facilities were
estimated using the computer cost model Water and Wastewater Treatment Technologies Appropriate
for Reuse (WAWTTAR) (Gearheart et al, 1994) WAWTTAR was developed to estimate the
feasibility and cost of water supply, wastewater collection, and wastewater treatment The
WAWTTAR cost model estimates costs in 1992 dollars, which are then indexed to 1995 dollars Inputs
to the WAWTTAR cost model include the community wastewater volume and characteristic date,
treatment trams, and land costs, as weE as target treatment performance standards
The cost of land for construction of treatment facilities vanes significantly from location to
location In some areas, the local government may already own the land necessary for construction of
treatment facilities In these instances, the land cost for treatment facilities will be minimal However,
many communities may need to purchase additional land to construct treatment facilities The cost of
the land will vary greatly from location to location In the state of North Carolina, for example, land
costs may range from $5,000 per acre in rural communities to $50,000 per acre in more developed
areas (Hoover, 1996) Land costs for this report are based on an approximate average cost of $25,000
per acre
The basic SBR and disinfection treatment system for the fringe community and the facultative
oxidation pond and disinfection for the rural community are expected to reduce the biological oxygen
demand (BOD) of the wastewater, as well as reduce suspended solids and fecal cohform bacteria
D-7
-------
These are parameters that would be included in most NPDES permits for municipal wastewater
treatment facilities The following treatment standards were input to the WAWTTAR cost model
BOD £ 30 mg/L,
Suspended solids £ 50 mg/L, and
Fecal Colrforrn * 200/100 ml
The SBR modified to provide nitrification «md deiutnfieation, which was used for both the fringe and
rural communities to remove nitrogen would meet the above standards and also reduce total nitrogen in
the wastewater to 6 mg/L
System Design and Cost
The cost estimates for centralized treatment of the wastewater from the rural community
includes construction of a new treatment system dedicated to the community's wastewater The cost
estimates for centralized treatment of the wastewater from the fringe community includes expansion of
the existing metropolitan center treatment plant to accomodate the additional flow The centralized
treatment costs discussed in this section do not include collection costs to transport the wastewater to
the treatment facility, which were presented earlier in this appendix Capital costs include the cost to
purchase land on which to construct the fa< ility, design, construction materials and equipment, and
labor costs Operating and maintenance costs include treatment chemicals such as chlorine and sulfur
dioxide, energy to run equipment such as mixers, pumps, and aerators, and labor
In some communities, existing wastewater treatment facilities may have sufficient capacity to
treat additional wastewater from nearby community developments, such as the fringe community
Other communities may be capable of upgi ading or expanding their existing wastewater treatment
facilities, such modifications may range from minor operational changes to extensive upgrades and/or
construction of additional facilities The e dent to which existing facilities must be modified to
accommodate additional wastewater is highly dependent on site-specific factors, such as the existing
capacity of the sewer and lift stations and treatment plant, and the effluent standards that must be met
by the facility Due to these highly site-specific factors, little or no capital investment would be
necessary in some communities to enable an existing facility to treat additional wastewater, while in
others upgrading the existing facility would be more expensive man construction of a completely new
facility Where existing facilities are used to treat additional wastewater, additional operating and
maintenance expenses would be incurred from the use of additional oxygen and treatment chemicals,
disposal of additional sludge, possible permit modifications, and other costs that are primarily and
secondarily related to the volume of wastewater treated
Fringe Community Costs (1995 $)
The capital cost to expand the existing metropolitan centralized wastewater treatment system
consisting of a grit chamber, comminutor, SBR, and chlonnation/dechlonnation unit to accomodate the
flow from the fringe community is estimated to be $464,000 Annual O&M costs are estimated to be
$61,000
D-8
-------
Rural Community Co$ts (1995$)
The capital cost to install a centralized wastewater treatment system consisting of a facultative
oxidation pond and a cWormation/dechlorination unit to service the rural community is estimated to be
$439,000, while annual O&M costs are estimated to be $14,000
Cluster Systems
A cluster system treats wastewater from a localized group of homes and is often used in
conjunction with an alternative collection system Cluster systems may include a central leach field for
subsurface discharge, or may discharge to surface waters The cluster systems evaluated for the rural
and fringe communities consists of onsite septic tanks, and central sand filters and leach fields The
main components of a central leach field are dosing siphons/tanks, pumps, adsorption trenches, and
land The main components of a sand filter are pumps, dosing tanks, and the filter
Cost Data
Cost estimates were developed for a central leach field to serve a cluster of homes The
Fountain Run case study (Abney, 1976), which was used to develop alternative collection costs, also
provides design information on leach field treatment The case study provides capital cost data for a
community divided into clusters ranging from 3 to 34 homes The study includes unit cost data (1976)
for leach field treatment, including construction of the adsorption trenches More recent cost data were
used for sand filter treatment for cluster systems (Otis, 1996) and for land As with centralized
treatment, the cost for land is based on the approximate average cost of $25,000 per acre for North
Carolina (Hoover, 1996)
Operating and maintenance costs include pumpout of the individual septic tanks and
replacement of distribution pump every 10 years, and quarterly inspections of the cluster systems Cost
data were obtained from the COSMO cost model (Renkow and Hoover, 1996) developed at North
Carolina State University and are described in detail in the onsite system section, described later in this
appendix
System Design and Cost
The homes in the fringe and rural communities were divided into smaller groupings , or
clusters, based on their proximity to each other Homes located in areas with poorly drained soils or
higher water table were also clustered together
Design information on leach fields for cluster systems of 3 to 34 homes was obtained from the
Fountain Run case study, and was combined with the average cost per acre of land to comprise the
capital cost for the leach field system The capital cost for sand filter treatment is based on wastewater
flow, and is estimated to be $15 per gallon (Otis, 1996) Operating and maintenance costs were
obtained from the COSMO cost model Cost estimates for the installation of treatment systems in the
fringe and rural areas are provided below
D-9
-------
Fringe Area
To correspond with alternative collection costs, the fringe community was broken into 20
clusters In the fringe community, cluster systems were costed for sand filter treatment followed by a
leach field Table D-4 presents a summary of the capital cost for cluster systems in the fringe
community
Table D-4 Fringe Area Clusters
Number of
Clusters ' .
1
6
3
10
Total
Number of
Connections
7
10
12
34
383
Capital Cost
per Connection
$6,598
$6,914
$6,529
$6,639
$2,953,421
Capital Cost The cost for the letch field treatment follows the methodology outlined in the
alternative collection section The sand filter treatment cost was estimated as $15 per gallon of
wastewater treated Using the basis of 175 gallons of wastewater produced per home, a sand filter
treatment system is estimated to cost $2,625 per home The capital cost for treatment in the fringe area
is $2,953,421, as shown in Table D-4
Operation and Maintenance Cost The operation and maintenance (O&M) cost for the
combined collection and treatment cluster was obtained from the COSMO cost model Maintenance of
the onsite systems, including yearly inspections and pumpouts every 10 years cost $32 per year
Quarterly inspections of the central leach field cost $100 per year, additional inspection tune for the
sand filter is expected to cost an additional $25 per year Pump replacements are expected to occur
three tunes over the life of the system and cost a total of $1,800
Rural Community
To correspond with alternative collection costs, the failing systems in the rural community were
broken into 4 clusters Table D-5 presents a summary of the capital cost for each cluster
D-10
-------
Table D-5 Rural Area Clusters
Number of
Clusters
2
1
1
Total
Number of
Connections
10
12
35
67
Capital Cost
per Connection
$6,914
$6,529
$6,639
$448,992
Capital Cost The cost for the leach field treatment follows the methodology outlined in the
alternative collection section The sand filter treatment cost was estimated as $15 per gallon of
wastewater treated Using the basis of 175 gallons of wastewater produced per home, a sand filter
treatment system is estimated to cost $2,625 per home Sand filter costs are added to the costs for the 4
cluster systems (serving 67 homes) located in areas with poor soil conditions The capital cost for
cluster treatment in the rural community is $448,992, as shown in Table D-5
Operation and Maintenance The operation and maintenance (O&M) cost for the combined
collection and treatment cluster was obtained from the COSMO cost model Maintenance of the onsite
systems, including yearly inspections and pumpouts every 10 years cost $32 per year Quarterly
inspections of the central leach field cost $100 per year, additional inspection time for the sand filter is
expected to cost an additional $25 per year Pump replacements are expected to occur three times over
the Me of the system and cost a total of $1,800
Onsite Treatment
Onsite systems treat wastewater from individual homes, thereby eliminating the need for a
centralized collection and treatment system A conventional onsite system consists of a septic tank,
gravity distribution leach field, and the soil beneath the leach field (Hoover and Renkow, 1997) Solids
from the wastewater deposit in the septic tank where anaerobic decomposition occurs The effluent is
dispersed throughout the leach field where it infiltrates the soil Additional treatment, such as aerobic
decomposition, occurs in the soil
Because of site-specific conditions, some onsite systems require additional treatment units or
use different methods of distributing the wastewater to the leach field Two system modifications
evaluated for the hypothetical community were low pressure pipe (LPP) distribution and sand filter
treatment Systems that utilize LPP distribution include a pump, pump tank, floats and controls, and a
pressure distribution system, including small diameter (1 25-inch) PVC lateral pipes with small
perforations
D-ll
-------
Cost Data
Onsite treatment costs were estimated using the COSMO cost model (Renkow and Hoover,
1996) Equipment and labor costs (1995 dollars) reflecting the Wisconsin area were obtained and
entered into COSMO to develop cost estimates However, it should be noted that onsite treatment costs
vary by region and may in fact be more or less cost-effective depending on site-specific conditions and
costs
Onsite capital costs include upgrades (i e , replacement systems) for failing systems in the rural
and fringe communities, as well as new systems for the future development in the fringe community
Operating and maintenance costs include quarterly inspections of the onsite systems, including septic
tanks, leach fields, and sand filters O&M costs also include pumpouts of the septic tanks and
replacement of the distribution pumps every 10 years The establishment of one district to provide
wastewater management to the fringe and rural communities assumes the district will take over
maintenance of all existing and future onsrte systems, therefore, the annual O&M cost estimates include
costs for the existing onsite systems that aire still functioning effectively
System Design and Cost
Two onsite treatment systems were evaluated for the hypothetical community
Septic tank with low pressure pipe (LPP) distribution to a leach field
« Septic tank with sand filter treatment and LPP distribution to a leach field
LPP systems were chosen because they provide dosing and resting cycles in the leach field and
distribute the wastewater more effectively throughout the system LPP distribution is effective in areas
with poor drainage, such as some of the homes in the hypothetical rural and fringe communities Sand
filters provide additional treatment to meet performance goals in systems located in ecologically
sensitive areas and/or areas with high water tables, such as the homes located near the river in the rural
community
Rural Community
About half (67) of the 135 onsite systems currently in operation in the rural community are
failing Twenty of the 67 failing systems are located in an area near the river with a high water table
These systems need to achieve better quality discharge, therefore, the cost estimates include installing a
new onsite systm equipped with a septic tank, a pressure-dosed single pass sand filter and a low
pressure pipe distribution system to a leach field Forty-seven of the 67 failing systems are located in
areas with poor soils, the cost estimates include installing a new septic tank with a low pressure pipe
distribution system to replace these systems Capital costs for the rural area are estimated to be
$510,000
Annual O&M costs include maintenance of the 67 newly upgraded systems, as well as
maintenance of the 68 current systems that still function effectively These existing systems consist of a
D-12
-------
septic tank and gravity distribution system to a leach field Annual O&M for the rural area is estimated
to be $13,400
Fnnge Community
About half (110) of the 220 onsite systems currently in operation in the rural community are
failing Thirty-three of these failing systems are located in an area near the over with a high water
table These systems need to achieve better quality discharge, therefore, the cost estimates include
installing a new onsite system equipped with a septic tank, a pressure-dosed single pass sand filter and a
low pressure pipe distribution system to a leach field Seventy-seven of these fading systems are
located in areas with poor soils, the cost estimates include installing a new septic tank with a low
pressure pipe distribution system to replace these systems The cost estimates for onsite treatment in
new fringe community homes also include installing new septic tanks with low pressure pipe
distribution to a leach field for all future homes (223 systems) Capital costs for the fringe community
is estimated to be $2,117,095, O&M costs are estimated to be $59,240
D-13
-------
-------
Appendix £
Case Studies
(Excerpted from "Managing Wastewater Prospects in Massachusetts
for a Decentralized Approach")
-------
r
-------
Nova Scotia, Canada
The noncontiguous district
A law passed in 1982 allows Nova $cotia towns and municipalities to cre-
ate Wastewater Management Districts The idea is to provide uniform "flush
and forget" services to building owners, regardless of the mix of technologies
and regardless of who owns the systems All property owners in the district
are obliged to participate in the funding, paying an annual charge that covers
capital recovery as well as operation and maintenance costs Boundaries of
the district need not coincide with the existing town boundaries, and would
typically be smaller
In fact, the district may be "noncontiguous," consisting of individual
properties or groups of properties that require special consideration for en-
vironmental or historical reasons The administrative institution is either a
sewer or public works committee of the municipal council It is vested with
all the necessary authorities and duties It can own or lease land, make con-
tracts, and fix and collect charges It is held responsible for overall planning,
upgrades, and design, construction, inspection, operation and maintenance of
all types of systems Finally, it can enter private property to inspect, repair, or
replace malfunctioning systems
>
In Port Maitland (population 360), a preliminary study estimated a per
household cost of $6000 to $10,000 to install a conventional plant The town
opted instead for a mix of individual onsite systems and four cluster systems
fed by gravity sewers to central septic tanks, siphon chambers, and contour
subsoil trenches Installation costs were approximately $2400 per unit Main-
tenance, repair, and pumping are provided by .private contractors with the Dis-
trict Annual fees per household were $65 in 1994 Recent studies have shown
that despite seasonally high groundwater, the systems are functioning well
Guysborough, with a similar population, adopted a plan that includes a
small conventional treatment plant for part of the town, an aerated lagoon for
another part, and individual onsite systems for a third part All owners were
assessed $2100 initially, and were charged annual fees of $125 in 1994
Voter approval of those in the district is required, it must be presented to
them as a complete plan that has considered sites, boundaries, servicing op-
tions, preliminary designs, and cost estimates However, districts have often
been voted down Only three Nova Scotia towns had adopted such districts
by the spring of 1994 Of sixteen others that considered it, decentralized
management was actually recommended in fourteen cases But six had
E-l
-------
chosen to centralize, and five were still in nebulous discussion Five others
were actively considering OWMD programs Equity of either service or cost
has been an issue in towns considering a mixed approach Furthermore,
central sewering is often regarded by the public as more desirable and less in-
terfering Aside from questions of equity, voters have not always perceived
that a problem existed, or that a Wastewater Management District was the entity
to fix it /
Sources
Jordan D Mooers and Donald H Waller, 1994, Wastewater manage-
ment districts the Nova Scotia experience In E C Jowett, 1994, (see ref-
erences) Nova Scotia Dept of Municipal Affairs, 1983, Wastewater
management districts an alternative for sewage disposal in small com-
munities (No further information available ) David A Pask, 1995, Per-
sonal communication Technical Services Coordinator, National Drinking
Water Clearinghouse, West Virginia Umv, Box 6064, Morgantown, WV
26506 Andrew Paton, 1995, Review merits of Wastewater Management
Districts (Municipal infrastructure action plan, Activity #15 ) Community
Planning Division, Provincial Planning Section, P O Box 216, Halifax, NS
B3J 2M4
E-2
-------
Cass County, Minnesota
Rural electric cooperatives manage service districts
Cass County is typical of the counties in the "Northern Late Ecoregion"
which have evolved from an economy based on agriculture and timber to an
economy where the lakes and associated tourism have become very impor-
tant Because much of the development and growth around the lake regions
took place in earlier years, there wasn't great attention paid to lot sizes, soil
types, or to consideration of water quality Cass County is now faced with a
growing number of nonconforming onsite septic systems around many of its
rural lakes Furthermore, the state Shorelands Management Act, and Min-
nesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regulations, are setting tighter
regulatory wastewater standards which Cass County is obliged to enforce
And many residents are in the unfortunate position of being unable to sell
their homes due to the fact that they can not provide a "conforming" septic
system on their property Cass County has been pressed to look for answers
In 1994, the county developed the concept of the "Environmental Subor-
dinate Service District," whereby a township, as the local unit of government,
can effectively provide, finance, and administrate governmental services for
subsets of its residents Establishment of such districts within a town is now
authorized under Minnesota Statute 365A So far, one district has been
formed, five are in planning stages The purpose of these districts is to pro-
vide a self-sufficient, effective, and consistent long-term management tool,
chiefly for neighborhood alternative (STEP) collection and communal leach
fields This model is innovative, because it stays at the grass roots level where
the affected property owners and the township remain involved Cass County
provides technical and support assistance when required, but is not directly in-
volved on a daily basis The partnering with the townships and the county has
allowed resource sharing, improved communication, and thus has opened up
prospects for other cooperative ventures such as land-use planning, road im-
provements, and geographic information systems
Once a Subordinate Service District is created by petition and vote from
the residents needing the specific service, a County/Township agreement is
signed The County then determines the system's design, handles construc-
tion oversight, gives final approval for the collection system, commits to year-
ly inspections, and assures regulatory compliance The leach fields are
located away from lakes, wells, and groundwater supplies Cass County will
allow systems to he on county-administered land in order to defray residents'
costs, or to enable optimal siting
E-3
-------
The township is the legal entity that secures management services needed
for the district to function Other key players are the MPCA's Bramerd
Regional Office, providing regulatory and technical assistance, the Association of
Cass County Lakes for lake and water quality monitoring and educational sup-
port, the Minnesota Association of Townships for their legal counsel, the
Mutual Service Insurance Agency for insuring the townships and the district
wastewater collection systems, the Tn-Counry Leech Lake Watershed (district)
for their engineering funding, and the Woodland Bank of Remer for working
with the township to obtain low interest financing for residents
However, another key and major player is the Rural Utilities Services
(formerly the Rural Electrification Association) The piece of the puzzle miss-
ing for the districts to actually work was an operations, maintenance, and
management program Therefore, Cass County sought out the local utility,
Crow Wing Power and Light (Bramerd, MN), and asked them to consider
helping Crow Wing Power arid Light now provides the following services as
utility managers (1) security monitoring, (2) monthly inspections (they also
maintain the grounds), (3) through a subcontractor, pumping of individual
septic tanks, and any other repair or maintenance required, and (4) record
keepinglogs are kept of inspections and repairs/maintenance Bills are sent
to the residents involved every six months, totalling about $200 per year per
household
A management maintenance contract is negotiated for the utility's services,
thus reducing the need for additional staffing by the town itself The township
remains the legal entity guaranteeing any unpaid charges through its power to
levy special district taxes
Source
This (extracted) text has been supplied by Bridget I Chard, Resource Con-
sultant, Red River Ox Cart Trail, Rte 1, Box 1187, Pillager, MN 56734, tel
218-825-0528
E-4
-------
Stinson Beach, California
Another classic, enforceable by shutting off town water
Stinson Beach is a small town in Mann County, located about 20 miles
north of San Francisco Part of the beach is a park that can draw 10,000
visitors on a weekend The town generally answers to Mann County govern-
ment At present there are about 700 onsite systems in Stinson Beach It is
another early participant in the onsite management concept
In 1961 a county survey concluded that surface and groundwaters were
being polluted by many of the town's often antiquated onsite systems In
response, the county created the Stinson Beach County Water District, whose
task would be solve the problem The water district is governed by a five-
member, elected Board of Directors who make policy and perform water
quality planning Between 1961 and 1973, nine separate studies and
proposals for central treatment were rejected by voters In 1973 the San Fran-
cisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB) intervened, put-
ting Stinson Beach on notice All onsite systems would be eliminated by
1977, and a building moratorium would go into effect forthwith Even so, a
tenth central sewer proposal was rejected Voters were not only alarmed by
costs, but were unconvinced that alternatives had been sufficiently con-
sidered An eleventh study, specifically undertaken to examine alternatives,
concluded that onsite remediation was both the most cost effective and en-
vironmentally benign
Concurrence was sought from both the regional board and the state legis-
lature, which enacted special legislation (consistent with California Water
Code provisions) in 1978 empowering the Stinson Beach County Water Dis-
trict to establish the Stinson Beach Onsite Wastewater Management Program
The program would answer directly to the SFRWQCB, rather than to Mann
County The program would govern the permitting, construction, inspection,
repair, and maintenance of old and, later, new systems Rules and regulations
were approved by the regional board on a trial basis, and were later made per-
manent The program went into effect with the passage of a series of town or-
dinances Rules and regulations (and ordinances) have evolved as problems
were encountered, there being few precedents to go on
Ownership of the systems, and ultimately the responsibility for repairing
or upgrading them, rest with the building owner But program staff perform
inspections out of which come permits to operate, or instead a citation that
lists violations and provides a timetable for remediation (Initially a house-to-
house survey was used to identify the most critical failures or substandard sys-
E-5
-------
terns from which came interim permits to operate ) As in the case of George-
town, the permit to operate is conditional on authorizing the district to enter
property for purposes of inspection and, if need be, repair Conventional sys-
tems are inspected every two years, alternative systems (now stipulated for
some areas) every quarter The permit may carry conditions, or varying
periods of validity The regulations provide penalties for noncomphance of
up to a $500 fine or 60 days imprisonment, each day considered another
count The district also has the power to effect its own repairs and put a lien
on the property until repaid And it has access to low-interest state loan funds
for low-income households However, it has rarely had to take strong measures
because the district is also empowered to cut off the water supply of a non-
complier, something it has had to do occasionally During the initial period,
about half the existing systems were found to require repair or replacement
Five staffers approve plans, and inspect and handle compliance The
budget is met partly out of tax revenues and partly by a $53 per household
semiannual fee Special inspections or inspections for compliance are also
charged for
Problems encountered at Stmson Beach mostly had to do with delays as
bugs were worked out and sudden demands were put on staff as well as
private engineers and installers One completely unanticipated problem Ac-
cess ports, required of system owners, were leading to a serious mosquito
problem, redesign of the ports resulted Then, in 1992, the RWQCB imposed
a moratorium on new systems pending reevaluation of the program, revised
(and tighter) technical, approval and tracking procedures, and the develop-
ment of a more adequate staffing and fee structure New ordinances were
passed in 1994, and the program is back on track Not without some giowth
pains, this 17-year old program is regarded as both successful and adaptable
to other locales
Sources
MarkS Richardson, 1989, (see references) Stmson Beach County
Water District, 19" Wastewater management program rules and regula-
tions, and {Revisions of 1994J (SBCWD Ordinance 1994-01), SBCWD,
Box 245, Stmson Beach, CA 94970 « SBCWD, 1982 Report on the Stm-
son Beach Onsite Wastewater Management District for the period January
17, 1978 through December 31, 1981 SBCWD (see address above) «
SBCWD, 1991 Fifteenth annual report of the Onsite Wastewater Manage-
ment Program (January 1, 1992 - December 31, 1992, including data sum-
mary of Jan 1, 1986 - Dec 31, 1991 ) SBCWD (see address above) « Bonnie
M Jones, 1995, Personal communication SBCWD (see address above)
E-6
-------
Keuka Lake, New York
A home-rule mtermunicipal agreement, eight towns strong
Lake Keuka lies in upper New York State's "Finger Lakes Region "The
Keuka watershed supplies water for over 20,000 people, over 10,000 live on
the lake's shores, which border 8 municipalities and two counties Overall,
water quality in the lake is good, but occasionally elevated levels of sediment,
nutrients, and pathogens have been recorded Pollution, and its potential impact
on health, recreation, property values and the associated tourism industry, led
local townspeople to identify watershed management as their leading concern
This concern was uncovered by a civic group, the Keuka Lake Associa-
tion, more than 30 years old, it ultimately comprised 1700 members and was
able, via its nonprofit Foundation, to acquire $180,000 in grants and other
revenues for study and planning purposes It went on, in 1991, to establish
the Keuka Lake Watershed Project, whose more specific purpose was to
promote uniform, coordinated, cooperative watershed management for the
region There were three prongs to its effort (1) establish details of the current
situation, (2) educate the public to the need for action, and (3) foster inter-
institutional cooperation
With regard to the latter, it encouraged the formation of individual Town
Watershed Advisory Committees that would provide local participatory
forums to address water issues, and at the same time report to the Project's
director An early suggestion of the individual committees was to form a
single, oversight committee, consisting of elected officials from the eight
municipalities around the lake This committee came to be called the Keuka
Watershed Improvement Cooperative (KWIC) Initially it had no official status
The stated purpose of the Cooperative was to develop a model watershed
law, and then identify who should administer it In developing the law it
specifically excluded facilities of such a size that they were already regulated
by the state When it came to administration, they examined and rejected
forming a regulatory commission through the state's enabling procedures,
and they examined and rejected county-based ("county-small") watershed dis-
tricts Instead, they opted for drawing up an mtermunicipal agreement under
the state's Home Rule provisions which allow the municipalities to do any-
thing together (by agreement) that they could have done separately The agree-
ment, itself, was only 8 pages long It legally formalized the cooperative,
providing for a board of directors consisting of the Chief Executive Officer of
each municipality, and for a professional watershed management staff Voters
were presented with a package consisting of the agreement, the proposed
E-7
-------
watershed protection law, and recommended policy and procedures, includ-
ing those for dispute resolution After dozens of public meetings the package
won by a landslide in every municipality
Regulations govern permitting, design standards, inspection and enforce-
ment A program for all sites in "Zone One," the land within 200 feet of lake,
calls for their inspection at least once every five years Failures are cited and
required upgrades stipulated Aerobic and other alternative systems must be
inspected annually, at which tume the owner must show evidence of an extant
maintenance contract Specific ations for the design, construction, and siting
of replacement systems are also tighter than the state's, and approval may re-
quire the use of advanced or "Best Availabfe Technology " Enforcement
provisions define violations, and specify timetables for compliance and fines
The individual municipalities issue notices of violations and citations to ap-
pear in town or village court
The Cooperative coordinates its activities with state and county health
agencies, maintains a database and CIS system to track environmental vari-
ables and the performance of new technologies, continues with ongoing
studies, and retains a Technical Review Committee to help with policy and
regulatory modifications Staff include a full time watershed manager,
employed by KWIC, and part time inspectors, employed by the towns
KWIC is financed by septic system permit fees, grants as available, and
funds from each member mum< ipahty's annual budget The annual KWIC
budget forecasts permit fees, considers grant funds immediately available,
and distributes the balance of funds needed evenly among the towns and villages
Sources
Peter Landre, 1995 The creation of Keuka Lake's Cooperative Water-
shed Program Clcanvatcrs, summer 1995,28-30 James C Smith, 1995
Protecting and Improving the waters of Keuka Lake Clearwaters, sum-
mer, 1995, 32-33 » Text is also partially based on a one-page description of
KWIC provided by James Smith (Peter Landre can be reached through
Cornell Cooperative Extension, 315-536-5123, James C Smith, Keuka Lake
Watershed Manager, can be reached at 315-536-4347 )
E-8
-------
Gloucester, Massachusetts
Exploring new approaches for Massachusetts' cities
Gloucester is a fishing port (population, 30,000) on the rocky coast of
Cape Ann, about 40 miles north of Boston While 40% of the city is sewered,
the particularly troublesome area of North Gloucester }s not Failed septic sys-
tems have resulted in the closing of shellfish beds, and since 1979 the city has
been under a consent decree to comply by 1999 with state clean water stand-
ards Numerous environmental problems were initially taken to imply that
North Gloucester should be required to hook into the city sewer These in-
cluded shallow soil depth, a high groundwater table, wetland areas, and
numerous private wells
The hookup was partially underway when the EPA Construction Grants
program was terminated in 1985, leaving Gloucester still with a problem, and
still under a consent decree Aware that centralized hookups would now be-
come extremely expensive to homeowners, and also aware that the central
sewer provided only primary treatment (albeit waivered for the time being),
the city began an examination of the many ramifications of decentralized
management, and many discussions with the state's Department of Environ-
mental Protection
In ongoing negotiations for its consent decree, Gloucester is pioneering a
new approach to wastewater management in Massachusetts It is in the
process of developing a citywide wastewater plan that avoids construction of
additional conventional sewer lines by proposing STEP sewers and/or ensuring
that all onsite systems are properly built and maintained Small community
systems and package plants would be administered by the city's Department
of Public Works, although their ownership is still under discussion
Individual systems would still be administered by the Board of Health, albeit
in a framework tougher than the state's recently revised (Title 5) regulations
As it presently stands, key provisions relating to individual systems include
the following An initial inspection and pumping will be conducted by either
Board of Health personnel or privately-licensed inspectors at the homeowner's
option Inspection will result in either an Operating Permit or an Order to
Comply that stipulates upgrade or replacement requirements and a time frame
for compliance Regular inspections will follow, ranging from annual (for
food industries) to every seven years (for residences) A BOH computer sys-
tem now in development will record data from these inspections as well as
from septage haulers There are emergency repair provisions and financial
relief (loan) provisions for qualifying homeowners to be funded through a
1-9
-------
Betterment Bill bond issue The system is to be financed by license fees from
professionals and by inspection fees from homeowners Contractors and
haulers will be licensed annually by the city, which will also conduct training
programs Enforcement will rely on the ultimate power of the BOH to make
repairs itself and then invoice, with collection falling to the city and courts
)
In areas unsuited for conventional systems, alternative technologies per-
mitted by the DEP will be stipulated For those, technical advice can be ob-
tained from the DPW as well as the BOH Such systems must be
accompanied by three-year maintenance contracts with either the DPW or a
licensed manufacturer/installer In North Gloucester a National Onsite
Demonstration Project is underway to test innovative systems yet to receive
general state approval Not all details of Gloucester's plans are settled, and
final approval has yet to be obtained from the DEP, which, however, is being
consulted as the plan is developed
Sources
City of Gloucester wastewater management plan, revision of 1-10-95,
Gloucester, MA David Venhuizen, Ward Engineering Associates, 1992,
Equivalent environmental protection analysis, an evaluation of the relative
protection provided by alternatives to Title 5 systems, in support of the City
of Gloucester wastewater management plan Ellen Kat2 (City Engineer),
Dan Ottenheimer (City Health Agent), 1995, Personal communication, City
Hall, Dale Ave , Gloucester, MA 01930
E-10
-------
Appendix F
The Role of Rural Electric Cooperatives
in Upgrading Facilities
-------
-------
THE ROLE OF RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES
IN UPGRADING FACILITIES
BACKGROUND
Rural electric cooperatives are private entities that build and manage extensive rural
utility systems These cooperatives have the capability to address a full range of technical,
financial, administrative, and regulatory issues related to the supply and management of
electrical power A report titled, "COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT - Opportunities in Water-
Wastewater Services, The Final Report of the NRECA/CFC Joint Member Task Force on Rural
Water and Wastewater Infrastructure, February 1995" (CI Report), produced jointly by the
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and the National Rural Utilities Cooperative
Finance Corporation, sets forth a "blueprint for rural electric cooperatives which decide to enter
the water-wastewater business voluntarily " In the Fiscal Year 1997 House Appropriations
Committee report, the Committee acknowledged the significant interest of the cooperatives "to
expand their current role of delivering electricity to the delivery to rural communities of clean
water and safe drinking water improvement technologies as well" The Committee "is uncertain
whether expansion into this new field is an appropriate means of upgrading rural drinking and
wastewater facilities to meet federal requirements " EPA was asked to review this matter and
report on its findings prior to the Committee's fiscal year 1998 budget hearings for EPA This
response examines whether cooperatives are an appropriate vehicle to manage, operate, maintain
and upgrade drinking water and wastewater systems It is included as an appendix to an overall
response to Congress on decentralized wastewater treatment systems
There are approximately 900 rural electric cooperatives in the United States An
estimated 80 to 90 of these cooperatives are involved in some aspect of drinking water or
wastewater management with the overwhelming majority dealing with drinking water
management Only a few of the cooperatives own wastewater treatment facilities or are currently
involved in wastewater management
KEY ISSUES
To determine whether cooperatives are appropriate management entities for managing
drinking water and wastewater systems, there are several key issues to consider
1 Authority for ownership/management,
2 Managerial and technical ability,
3 Ability to obtain capital, and
4 Ability to ensure continued management and operation and maintenance (O&M)
F-1
-------
These issues are examined below for the purpose of determining whether cooperatives are
appropriate for upgrading drinking water and wastewater facilities to meet federal requirements
1. Authority for Ownership/Management The CI Report notes that most states - all
but 13 - have laws that authorize cooperatives to own and operate drinking water and wastewater
facilities The CI Report notes " some cooperatives have used innovative methods to gam entry
to the drinking water and wastewater business Cooperatives may be eligible through other
methods of organization "
In addition to state and local authority, in the wastewater area, cooperatives must have
each individual owners' agreement to upgrade and/or operate and maintain their onsite
wastewater systems This generally happens when a large percentage of homeowners have
failing onsite systems and have a need tor upgraded treatment which they cannot meet
themselves, and for which local government is incapable or unwilling to meet The owners
retain the services of a cooperative whic h would seek the capital needed for the system upgrade
The cooperative would be charged with the responsibility for operation and maintenance of the
system and charge a monthly utility rate for this service and the cost of needed upgrades
In cases where centralized wastewater collection and treatment systems or water
distribution systems already exist, but fail to meet the federal statutory or regulatory
requirements, the same situation occurs If the facilities are inadequate, the system owner must
invest in improvements An organization, such as a cooperative or other private entity, may take
ownership of the system and provide operation and maintenance Issues associated with
privatization of wastewater are discussed in a companion document entitled, "Response to
Congress on Privatization of Wastewatei Facilities"
One area related to wastewater where cooperatives are having success is where state or
local health officials have ruled that conventional onsite wastewater systems will not work due to
soil conditions In these cases, developers are usually not familiar with alternative systems and
welcome cooperatives to take ownership and/or manage the new upgraded systems that they are
required to install There are two driving forces that are bringing this about 1) the need for
some form of wastewater treatment other than conventional septic systems, and 2) the revenue
generated by each new homeowner (customer) for electric power (estimated at about $1,000 / yr /
household)
A second area of success has been assistance and contract management to drinking water
authorities, both public and private The CI Report indicates that types of services currently
provided include organizing, feasibility, bylaws, mapping, accounting and billing
2 Managerial and Technical Ability Cooperatives do not generally have the technical
ability "in house" to conduct drinking water and wastewater feasibility studies and facility
designs (with the exception of those which currently own or operate drinking water and/or
wastewater facilities) However, they aie well equipped with managerial capabilities and can
F-2
-------
contract for these technical services In addition, cooperative associations have contracted with
several drinking water and wastewater research-oriented professionals who provide technical
assistance, including demonstrations of technology, thus giving them access to technically
competent people At least one state cooperative association is already performing
demonstrations of alternative technologies (in Pennsylvania, five onsite" system projects will be
demonstrated)
Rural electric cooperatives have historically dealt with issues relating to the use of
electricity to enhance the lives of inhabitants of rural areas in the context of economic
development Conventional onsite systems (septic tank and leach field) typically do not involve
the use of electricity, while centralized systems and alternative types of onsite systems generally
rely upon electricity for pumping, power, lighting and other activities Therefore, there could be
a possible concern that rural electric cooperatives might be more comfortable with constructing
or managing facilities which rely on electric power versus those that do not This concern would
need to be addressed if rural electee cooperatives are to play a more prominent role in the
construction and/or management of decentralized treatment systems It should be noted that the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (the Farm Bill) prohibits cooperatives
from requiring those receiving drinking water and wastewater services to receive electee
services
3 Ability to Obtain Capital In the CI Report (chapter 9), there is considerable
discussion of the various possible funding scenarios Federal funding, including loans, grants,
and guarantee programs, for drinking water and wastewater programs is provided by the
following federal departments and agencies
o USDA's Rural Utilities Service (RUS)
o USDA's Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service (RBCDS)
o USDA's Rural Housing and Community Development Service (RHCDS)
o US Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration (EDA)
o US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
o US EPA
There are many opportunities for funding other than federal programs, including loans
from local financial institutions In addition, two other sources of funding are the National Rural
Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation (CFC), and National Bank for Cooperatives
(CoBank) The cooperatives' managerial skills and equity provide support that other private or
governmental organizations may not provide in rural areas However, issues related to
ownership and management of the facilities may limit where funds can be obtained The CI
Report provides six recommendations to Congress to strengthen the ability of cooperatives to
obtain funding These recommendations include authorization for a re-lending program for
system upgrades, funding for the Water-Wastewater Disposal Loan Guarantee program, removal
F-3
-------
of the "no-credit-elsewhere" condition in the loan program, financing for feasibility studies,
eligibility for cooperatives to receive fluids under all federal programs, and support for rural
electric infrastructure activities
4 Ability to Ensure Continued Management and O&M Chapter 8 of the CI Report
provides a strong basis for the ways that cooperatives can assist in management and O&M
Cooperatives are more likely to provide better management and O&M than small public (town)
or private entities (e g homeowners' associations) which cannot afford to staff up appropriately
and typically run into political and financial conflicts The ability to provide management,
including O&M, could be the strongest and most valuable asset the cooperatives offer The real
problem in the wastewater area involves convincing the homeowners there is a need for
management services, including O&M, of the onsite wastewater system starting irom its initial
installation
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities can be upgraded and
managed by rural electric cooperatives, although 13 states would require enabling legislation for
them to own and/or operate these facilities Upgrades of drinking water and wastewater facilities
by cooperatives could be a good solution in rural areas because cooperatives are non-political,
known entities to the homeowners, that bring experienced management and staff to solve the
O&M challenge, as well as options for obtaining capital Also, the ability to provide
management services, including O&M, can be the cooperatives' most valuable asset
From the drinking water perspective, cooperatives offer great promise as management
entities for small water systems which lack institutional strength However, for many reasons,
some stated above, it is unlikely that more cooperatives will make significant movements into the
drinking water and wastewater business quickly These reasons involve intere st on the part of
individual owners to pay for onsite system management, the technical ability of the cooperative
to manage drinking water and wastewater facilities, limited experience with low energy onsite
technologies, and the ability to obtain capital Once these issues are resolved, the communities
and cooperatives may be able to work together to efficiently provide the needed improvements
and services
F-4
------- |